2018 (7) TMI 245

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....entral Excise<br>Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) and Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri G. Natarajan, Advocate for the Appellant Shri K.P. Muralidharan, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per Ms. Sulekha Beevi, The above ROM application Nos. E/ROM/40240 & 40241/2018 are filed by the appellant / assessee seeking rectification of mistake in the Final Order No. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....M/s. NHS and M/s. Anand is confirmed; the same is an error apparent on the face of record, which needs rectification. 3. On behalf of the department as regards the ROM filed by department, ld. AR Shri K.P. Muralidharan adverted our attention to para 6.1 and page 14 of the impugned order. He submitted that the Tribunal has set aside the demand in respect of clearances made to M/s. NHS observing ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....onvinced that this is an error apparent on the face of record which requires rectification. The last sentence in para 7 of the impugned final order is modified as under:- "Thus, we do not find any ground to interfere with the quantification of duty demand made in respect of M/s. Anand." 6. The ld. AR has pointed out that in page 14 , the Tribunal has wrongly observed that Shri Natarajan was ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... said Natarajan, statement is not admissible. By mistake, the Tribunal has wrongly observed that cross-examination of Shri Natarajan was not allowed. The decision stated supra lays down that the statement is admissible in evidence only if the person is examined, as provided under Section 9D. The mistake being apparent on the face of record, the said sentence is modified as under:- "In any case,....