TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1154
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by this Tribunal. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant M/s Prafful Overseas Pvt Ltd, Panoli (Appellant) had filed a refund claim of Rs. 52,39,245/- on account of credit of proportionate Education Cess and Secondary and Higher Education Cess on CVD on goods imported by them. The lower authorities rejected the refund claim vide order dated 10.08.2015 as they found that M/s Prafful had not paid above cess amounts. The appellant's claim was also rejected by the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide order No. CCESA-VAD-APP(II)-VK- 239/2016-17 dated 14.09.2016. The appellant, therefore, filed an appeal bearing No. E/12161/2016-DB against the above order which was decided by this Tribunal vide final order No. A/12252/2023 dated 11.10.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Therefore, there was apparent mistake on face of the record that the impugned order which was held as not sustainable, should have been upheld and the appeal of the party should have been rejected which by mistake, was allowed. 4. After hearing the arguments on ROM application filed by the Revenue, the Tribunal passed miscellaneous order No. 10615/2024 dated 29.11.2024, in para 4 of which it held as under:- "4. On careful consideration of the submission made by Learned AR and perusal of record, we find that the order was passed on the basis of the learned Counsel's letter wherein he submitted this Tribunal's decision No. A/10536-10538/2022 dated 20.05.2022 and final order No. 12007/2023 dated 12.09.2023 in the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en prayed that even in the rectification order dated 29.11.2024 so passed in their ROM, there is apparent contradiction in the order and mistake on face of records. 6. Learned AR during arguments highlighted the mistake apparent on record and prayed for passing suitable order for rectification of Tribunal's final order dated 12.10.2023. During arguments, Bench asked the learned AR to produce rulings to support whether second ROM (i.e. ROM on another ROM) is permissible as per the provisions of the Act? Learned AR pressed for Revenue's second ROM application and cited two recent decisions of Cestat New Delhi, one in the case of Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi Vs. M/s Jai Durga Rubberised Fabrics India Pvt Ltd reported in 2024 (10) TMI ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not be raised in ROM application. 8. In present matter, none appeared from the other side to oppose the prayer of Revenue. Therefore, in view of rulings cited by Learned AR, we allow the second ROM application filed by Revenue as no substantive correction other than clerical error is requested to be rectified. On careful consideration of the submissions made by learned AR and perusal of record, we find that order in appeal No. E/12161/2016 was passed on the basis of various documents and submissions made by both the sides. Throughout entire discussion and on the basis of earlier order reproduced in para 4, the Tribunal's view was in Revenue's favour but in para 4.1 and 5, they held that impugned order is not sustainable and allowed the p....