2008 (7) TMI 381

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing the petitioners and the representatives of Revenue, vide final order No. 12/CEX/2002, dated 23-5-2002 [2003 (159) E.L.T. 1081 (Sett. Comm.)] the Commission decided the settlement application moved by the petitioners. The petitioners filed a Miscellaneous Application dated 1-1-2004, submitting that two factual errors amounting to error apparent on record were committed by the Commission while passing the final order. According to the petitioners, the said two errors were, (1) not extending the benefit of deemed credit on the basis of decision in the case of M/s. Digambar Foundry, reported in 2000 (118) E.L.T. 85 (T-LB) of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal, and (2) immunity from prosecution was not granted under the impression that prosecu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l order dated 23-5-2002 passed by the Commission that these submissions were thoroughly considered and the deemed credit plea has been consciously rejected. The Bench, therefore, informed that there is no error apparent on face of the records and hence, the Bench cannot review the order." 4. Insofar as launching of prosecution is concerned, paragraph No.6 of the impugned order reads as under: "(6) The Commission enquired from the Revenue as to whether any prosecution proceedings were launched against the applicant. The Revenue submitted that criminal complaint had already been filed; however, as regards launching of prosecution, he would inquire with the legal cell and inform the Commission. The Commission directed the Revenue to give....