TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (2) TMI 1055
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evenue has been represented by the Ld. Authorised Representative, Shri L. Patra. 3. In case of ROM Application No. 10349/2016 the Ld. Advocate based on the said application interalia submits as under:- (i) In case of this matter, the appeal was filed by M/s Fairdeal Supplies Pvt Ltd., which was dismissed on merits ex-parte on 23.02.2016. (ii) The advocate was wrongly informed that the bench of the Hon'ble Tribunal was unavailable; the said advocate on that day was appearing before the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat. (iii) The absence in appearing on its part and through its advocate was genuine and bonafide and in view of the same, the applicant may be afforded another opportunity to argue and represent the case. (iv) It appea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fication No. 21/2002 and final assessment was ordered for all the four bills of entry at 15% of rate of duty. 6.1. The appellant applicant filed an appeal against the said assessment with the Commissioner (Appeals), who dismissed their appeal vide OIA dated 31.03.2007. The Appellants thereafter filed appeal No. C/353/2007 before this Tribunal. 6.2 This Tribunal examined the merits of the case and decided it vide Order No. A/10121/2016 dated 23.02.2016 interalia holding therein that they do not find any reason to interfere with the OIA No. 63/JMN/2007 dated 31.03.2007 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 7. Thereafter, the appellant-applicant filed persent two applications - one for Restoration of Appeal (ROA)and another for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cannot entertain an application for restoration of the appeal. We find no sufficiently strong reason to interfere with the Tribunal's said Order dated 23.02.2016 and, therefore, are unable to accept the application for restoration of appeal filed by the appellant applicant. The appellant's application for Rectification of Mistake (ROM) interalia states that there is glaring defect and errors in the Order dated 23.02.2016 passed by this Tribunal. The appellant-applicant interalia mentions that samples were not correctly drawn by the department, denying them the benefit of Notification No. 21/2002-03. 7.2.1. We find that the subject issue of entitlement to benefit of Notification No. 21/2002-03 has been dealt with in detail in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de the same appeal under the guise of rectification of mistake, which would be in the category of review of its own order, when the said power of review has not been provided to this Tribunal. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur, Mumbai vs. RDC Concrete (India) P. Ltd 2011 (270) E.L.T. 625 (S.C.), interalia observers as under:- "21. This Court has decided in several cases that a mistake apparent on record must be an obvious and patent mistake and the mistake should not be such which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning. In the case of T.S. Balram v. M/s. Volkart Brothers (supra), this Court has already decided that power to rectify a mistake should be exercis....