2005 (98) ECC 13 (Tri)

CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

West Regional Bench -- Mumbai

Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice President and Shri Moheb Ali M., Member (T)

Shroff Textiles Ltd.

Versus

Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai

Application No. E/MA(Ors)/2122/04-Mum in Appeal No. E/718/99-Mum

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. YPP/1109/M.11/98 dated 25.11.1998 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai]

Order No. M/917/WZB/2004/C-I, dt. 10.11.2004, Certified on 29.11.2004

Rectification of Mistake

Costing -- Polyethylene sheets -- There was no recording of finding on the points not raised before the bench -- Hence, there was no error apparent on the face of the tribunal's order.

Application dismissed

PRESENT :

Shri K.K. Shroff, Adv. for the appellant.

Shri S.V. Parelkar, JDR for the respondent.

Per : Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram

According to the applicants, the following errors apparent on the face of the records arose from the Tribunal's Final Order No. A/1016/WZB/2004/C-I dated 2.6.2004:-

(i) comparable price for costing of captively consumed expanded Polyethylene sheets laminated with PVC Jute Mats has not been considered.

(ii) fact that the revised declaration in prescribed format submitted in 1998 declaring the price as Rs. 100 has been accepted, has not been considered;

(iii) benefit of Sales Tax while arriving at assessable value has not been extended;

(iv) quantum of profit/overheads to be added while arriving at costing of the captively consumed products has not been considered; and

(v) benefit of modvat has not been given.

2. We heard both sides. We find that none represented the appellants on the date fixed for hearing of appeal, in spite of notice. The above points were not argued. Therefore, there is no recording of finding on the point/s not raised before the Bench. Hence, there is no error apparent on the face of the Tribunal's order. The applicants are seeking re-hearing of the appeal in the guise of an ROM application, which is not legally permissible.

3. In the result, we see no merit in this application and accordingly dismiss the same.

………………………….