Full Judgment
F.25. B.I.D.C. Estate ...... Applicant/Appellant Gorwa, Baroda.
(1) This humble Petition contain a prayer for rectification of mistake in final order No.664/99-C dt. 2-8-99 (Zerox copy enclosed) and Misc. Order No.29/2000/C dt. 10-3-2000 according to which Applicant's Appeal No.E/893/92-C and ROM has been dismissed.
(2) The Appellant respectfully invite attention to the following remarks made in the Misc. Order No.29/2000/C dt. 10-3-2000 (A) We find that the question of loan licencee was not raised in the proceeding before the Tribunal. " It may be seen that last para (D) is a Ground taken up for the point of recovery from LOAN LICENCEE (if at all to be made) and not from the Appellant.
(ii) Appellant's letter No. URPL/662/98-99 dt.16-1-99 . It may be seen that at para 4, the appellant has taken up the point of recovery from Loan Licencee forcefully, so much so that the appellant had pointed out judgment of Hon'able Tribunal's own orders including the judgment of Hon'able Gujarat High Court in case of M/s Indica Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. V/s UOI. Not only this, the request was made for recovery from Loan Licencee M/s Centurion and M/s Axar Pharmaceuticals Vide para 5 of this letter.
(iii) This issue was discussed in "Submission in Brief" Submitted for consideration when we waived personal hearing.
It is evident that this point was taken up at adjudication stage also evident two letters and this point appeared in Annexure-I also in addition to its appearance at last para (D) at page 8 of Grounds of Appeal.
(B) "In the Grounds of Appeal, it was pleaded that the Appellant want decision on merits and the grounds taken was only with regard to limitation jurisdiction " It may be relevant to reproduce that point mentioned in the Grounds of Appeal with regard to WAIVER of defence point is as under: "That the Appellant waives his defence on merits of the case regarding availability of benefit under notification no.: 122/86 in respect of two medicines.....
It is quite evident from the above that what was waived was DEFENCE POINT REGARDING AVAILABILITY OF BENEFIT UNDER NOTIFICATION NO. 122/86 IN RESPECT OF TWO MEDICINES. Nowhere the Appelant has mentioned waiver about LOAN LICENCEE DEFENCE POINT. In support, the Appellant may like to point out that under the Grounds of Appeal, the Appellant has not discussed anything about the point of availability of benefit under notification No.122/86 because this point was waived. It MAY BE SEEN THAT, NOTWITHSTANDING WAIVER OF THIS POINT. THE HON'ABLE TRIBUNAL HAS GIVEN THEIR VERDICT QUITE AT LENGTH ON THIS POINT. At the same time,it is quite pertinent to t take note of the fact that the point of "RECOVERY FROM LOAN LICENCEE" was very much discussed at para (D) at page 8 of Grounds of Appeal. Nothing has been discussed and no decision has been given on this point.
Such a fact makes it quite clear that waiver was only for the point of "AVAILABILITY OF BENEFIT UNDER NOTIFICATION NO.122/86" and none else and definitely NOT for the defense point regarding "RECOVERY FROM LOAN LICENCEE" which was very much covered under the same Grounds of Appeal.
(3) The Hon'able Tribunal has accepted in the aforesaid Misc. Order No. 29/2000-c dt. 10-3-2000 itself that the Appellant has taken up point of "JURISDICTION".
It may however, be seen from the Hon'able Tribunal's final order No.664/99/C dt.2-8-99 that nothing has been discussed at all on this point and there is total absence of Hon'able Tribunal's decision on this point. At this stage. Appellant may like to make submissions with regard to "PROVISION APPROVAL OF CLASSIFICATION LIST UNDER RULE 9B" as discussed in Misc. Order No. M/29/2000/c dt. 10-3-2000. We may only like to pray that such "Provisional Approval" without following the required procedure viz: (i) Asst. Collector's letter thereto (regarding Provisional Approval/Assessment order ) and (ii) requiring bond and EXECUTING BOND by Appellant, cannot be considered as Provisional Approval/assessment and particularly when RT 12s were assessed finally.
1. The Appellant has suffered a lot in dealing with this issue at number of stages and except once, has waived personal hearing only due to financial hardships. We waive personal hearing for this ROM also with a prayer to decide this ROM by considering the above submissions read with earlier submissions and request for JUSTICE. 2. The Appellant once again pray for JUSTICE on the above submissions. The Appellant has already paid the sum of rupees 93,871=70 as quantified by the Range Supretendent. The Appellant has already spent equal amount just for getting JUSTICE in this genuine case.
WAIVER: The Appellant hereby waivse personal hearing for this Misc.
Application, so also for related appeal matter which may kindly be re-decided considering above submissions and to rectify the Hon'able Tribunal's final order No.664/99/C dt.2-8-99.
3. We have heard Dr. D.K. Verma, SDR, who submitted that once earlier the applicants have filed ROM application which had already been disposed of. This is the second ROM application on the same subject with the same pleas and it was not maintainable. The Tribunal has gone into all relevant aspects and had passed the final order in consistent with the legal provisions. He pleads that ROM application be dismissed.
4. We find that the applicants has filed appeal with the Tribunal against the order-in-appeal dated 25.3.92 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. They have prayed for decision on merits.
5. The appeal was disposed of by the final order No.664/99 c 2.8.99.
Thereafter they filed ROM application and prayed for decision on merits. This ROM application was disposed of by the Misc. Order No.29/2000 C dated 10.03.2000. We find that is the second ROM application. The ROM application has already been extracted above. The ROM application has already been extracted above. It will be seen that in the garb of the ROM application what the applicants want is the modification/recall of the order, which is beyond the scope of the ROM application.
6. We agree with the submission of the ld. SDR and we find no merit in the ROM application and the same is dismissed. Ordered accordingly.