Skip to content


Khandelwal Cement Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(2005)(190)ELT42TriDel
AppellantKhandelwal Cement Ltd.
RespondentCommissioner of Central Excise
Excerpt:
.....been referred/discussed by the bench. this very ground has been again reiterated before us by the learned counsel who has further contended that the facts have also not been properly appreciated regarding the non-accountal of the slag cement and its removal in a clandestine manner. after going through the record, we are unable to subscribe to this contention of the learned counsel. the scope of the rom is quite limited and within its scope, the tribunal has power only to correct any mistake of fact or law apparent on the face of the record. the facts which are debatable, the law which requires interpretation, cannot be made basis for the recall of the order by the tribunal, on the ground that these were not applied as per the interpretation/presentation by the assessee. the ratio of the.....
Judgment:
2. The appellants through the present ROM application have sought recall of the order on the ground that the case law cited by the counsel at the time of hearing of the appeal, had not been referred/discussed by the Bench. This very ground has been again reiterated before us by the learned counsel who has further contended that the facts have also not been properly appreciated regarding the non-accountal of the slag cement and its removal in a clandestine manner. After going through the record, we are unable to subscribe to this contention of the learned counsel. The scope of the ROM is quite limited and within its scope, the Tribunal has power only to correct any mistake of fact or law apparent on the face of the record. The facts which are debatable, the law which requires interpretation, cannot be made basis for the recall of the order by the Tribunal, on the ground that these were not applied as per the interpretation/presentation by the assessee. The ratio of the law laid down in the case of Tan India Ltd. v. CCE, Chennai - , referred to by the learned Counsel, does not in any manner advance the case of the appellants. In that case, the Hon'ble Madras High Court has only observed that the Tribunal should exercise the inherent powers under Rule 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules and deal with the rectification of mistake application in the manner known to the law.

3. The manner well known to the law is that, in an ROM application, the Tribunal or even the Court has now power to recall its own order for re-appreciation of the evidence and the law. If the order does not suffer from any apparent mistake of fact or law, it cannot be rectified/recalled by the Tribunal simply because the assessee wants the re-appreciation of the facts and law. In the instant case, all the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants had been referred to and discussed by the Tribunal, in the impugned order. The case law cited at that time had been also referred to and distinguished.

4. Since the order does not suffer from any patent mistake of fact or law, the ROM application of the appellants is without any merit and the same is dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //