2025 (5) TMI 1688

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d Representative ORDER The present order disposes of three applications seeking rectification of mistake allegedly apparent on the face of Final Order No. 51671-51673/2023 dated 20.12.2023. It is submitted by the applicant, common for three of the applications, that the Tribunal has erred in not taking cognizance of the applicant's submission in its appeal and in the synopsis regarding quantification of duty with respect to penalty under Rule 26 of the rules. Despite that the Tribunal specifically asked for the calculations for quantification of penalty which the appellant has submitted still the same has not been taken into consideration in the final order. The findings of para 27 to 29 of the Order-in-Appeal No. 07-09/2020 dated 20.03.2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al order. The affidavit of Shri Ram Baksh, Proprietor of M/s Real Industrial Coating giving an undertaking to the Registrar of Trademarks that there are no legal proceedings in the matter of registration of brand name 'REAL' before any Court of law the assignment dated 27.11.2010 has also been impressed upon with mention 'REAL' and 'NICE' are wrongly ignored to have been assigned to M/s Real Industrial Coating. From the documents as were placed on record the following facts were clearly apparent: (i) M/s Real Industrial Coating has applied for registration of Trade Mark No. 1047730 (REAL) with himself as proprietor of said brand w.e.f. 27.11.2010. (ii) that he was brought on record as proprietor of said trade mark. (iii) that he has subs....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... submitted that although submissions were raised at the time of final hearing of the appeal all of them have clearly been dealt with in the impugned final order. It is rather alleged that under the garb of the present application of seeking rectification of mistake, appellant is trying to get the impugned final orders recalled. Recalling of order is not permissible in terms of Section 35C((2) of Central Excise Act, 1944. With these submissions, the applications are prayed to be dismissed. 6. Having heard both the parties with respect to three of the miscellaneous applications seeking rectification of mistake in final order No 51671-51673 dated 20.12.2023, the common grievance in three of the applications is about the amount of penalty. We ....