Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. M/S. Oswal Overseas - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....both the sides, we see no substance in the contention of the revenue in view of the judgement of the hon'ble delhi high court in the case of deeksha suri vs. itat [1998 (102)elt524 (del) in the case of deeksha suri cited (supra), the hon'ble delhi high court has held that merely because the tribunal overlooked its own order while deciding an appeal finally, it will not render a judgement void or a nullity and such an order cannot be recalled (para 33 of the high court order). further in the case of ester industries ltd. vs.cce, meerut [1998 (97)elt 535(tribunal)], the tribunal has dismissed the rom application filed on the ground that on similar issue the tribunal had taken a different view in another case ut that case was not cited before the bench. following the ratio of the above orders, we hold that there is no error apparent from the face of the record and accordingly reject the rom application.

Judgment:

1. According to the ld. SDR, the Tribunal has erred in relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Chander Kapoor vs. Amar Bose reported in 1990 (1) Supreme court Cases 234, in holding that the demand of duty connot be enforced against the appellants. Since the Larger Bench of the Tribunal has distinguished the above judgement of the Apex Court vide its judgement in the case of M/s. Wilson And Company vs. CCE, Madras 2. On hearing both the sides, we see no substance in the contention of the Revenue in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Deeksha Suri vs. ITAT [1998 (102)ELT524 (Del) in the case of Deeksha Suri cited (supra), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that merely because the Tribunal overlooked its own order while deciding an appeal finally, it will not render a judgement void or a nullity and such an order cannot be recalled (para 33 of the High Court Order). Further in the case of Ester Industries Ltd. vs.CCE, Meerut [1998 (97)ELT 535(Tribunal)], the Tribunal has dismissed the ROM application filed on the ground that on similar issue the Tribunal had taken a different view in another case ut that case was not cited before the Bench. Following the ratio of the above orders, we hold that there is no error apparent from the face of the record and accordingly reject the ROM application.