TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (8) TMI 1282
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Member (J) Shri S.K. Pahwa, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri B.B. Sharma, DR, for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per: Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (J)]. - The above ROM application is filed by the appellant in Appeal No. C/483/2007-CU(DB) alleging that there is an error apparent on the face of records in the Final Order Nos. C/A/53952-53958/2014-CU(DB), dated 15-10-2014, whereby the said appeal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., seeking permission to urge the aforementioned aspect as an additional ground. Along with the Misc. application a copy of the order of the departmental proceedings and also copy of the decision rendered in Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar v. Parminder Jit Singh - 2013 (293) E.L.T. 241 (Tri. - Del.) on identical facts was furnished. The learned counsel argued that the Tribunal failed to consider ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dent is a mistake apparent from the records. The discovery of the mistake must not require long process or reasoning. Further a submission made on an issue if not considered, which forms the basis of the decision, then such non-consideration is a mistake apparent from the records. Such mistake necessitates the exercise of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Tribunal under Section 35C(2) for rectification. 6. The grievance of the appellant is that the Tribunal failed to consider the fact that the departmental proceedings have culminated in his favour. As rightly pressed by the learned Counsel for the appellants, on similar facts this Tribunal in Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar v. Parminder Jit Singh (supra) has held that when disciplinary ....