Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. J.K. Industries Ltd.

1. the revenue has filed the above application for rectification of certain mistakes that are stated to have arisen from tribunal's final order no. 03-04/2000-c dated 22.12.99. learned dr submits that there is a mistake in paragraph 6 of the order, in holding that the commissioner (appeals) has not recorded any finding on the alternate submission of the assesees for eligibility to concessional rate of duty in terms of si. no. 3(i) of notification 21/95-ce dated 16.3.95, since the commissioner has given his finding in internal page 2 of order-in-appeal (subject matter of appeal no. e/1992/97-c). the second mistake, according to the revenue lies in not recording any finding in respect of tyre 195/65-r-15 which was involved in order-in-appeal no.113 dated 19.9.97 (subject matter of appeal no. e/1993/97-c).2. on the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contends that the commissioner (appeals) did not record any independent finding on the eligibility to the benefit of concessional rate of duty in terms of si. no. 3(i) of notification 21/95 but gave his finding only on the eligibility in terms of si. no. 4 (b) (iii) of the notification. he further submits that there was no necessity for the tribunal to record a separate finding on tyre 195-65-r-15, in view of the fact that the cases were remanded for fresh decision to the jurisdictional assistant commissioner.3. on hearing the rival submissions, we agree with the respondents that the lower appellate authority had not recorded any independent finding on the claim to the benefit of si. no. 3(i) of the notification and hence no error arises from the tribunal's final order. we also agree that, in view of the remand of the case, the tribunal was not called upon to record a separate finding on the tyres of the size above-mentioned.4. in the result, we hold that no error apparent on the face of the record arises in this case and reject the rom application.