2002 (9) TMI 173

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s allegedly appearing in the impugned order of the Tribunal had been detailed in para 14 of the application and the same are reproduced as under :- "(i) Hon'ble Tribunal has not given any finding on applicant's persistent plea that the claim of refund filed by it is consequential to CEGAT's final order dated 22-1-1999 and therefore limitation of six months stipulated under section 11B of the Central Excise Act does not apply. (ii) Without prejudice to the above plea, it is admitted to the department that duty had to be paid by the applicant/appellant because C.T. 2 certificate was denied by Central Excise authorities at Bareilly, as evident from the show cause notice (Annexure L to the present appeal) and Deputy Commissioner's O-in-O ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gned order passed on merits, after hearing both the sides and to rewrite the judgment, under the guise of the ROM, the applicants cannot legally ask for rehearing of the appeal. 5. We have heard both the sides and gone through the record. 6. The perusal of the impugned order dated 15-2-2002 shows that the applicants applied for the refund of the duty amount of Rs. 24,28,233/- on 28-10-99 under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act on the ground that they were procuring Naphtha under CT-2 certificates under Chapter X procedure from Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., but they paid duty on the naphtha during the period 8-2-98 to 11-5-98, as central excise authority denied them CT-2 certificate in respect of use of naphtha in the turbines for g....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ecalled on any of the grounds taken by the applicants, detailed above. There is no dispute with the proposition of law laid down in Mafatlal Industries case (supra) by the Apex Court. But the question as to whether the refund claim of the applicants was within time or barred by limitation, was a question of fact which had been decided against them by the Tribunal. Similarly, allowing production of additional evidence (letters) to the applicants at the appellate stages was also within the discretion of the Tribunal. The Tribunal disallowed the production keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. The ratio of law laid in the cases, referred to above cited by the Counsel for contending that production of the documents was wrongl....