Shamvik Glasstech Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

1. according to the applicant an obvious and patent error arises on the face of the record of the final order of the tribunal inasmuch as the plea regarding non-applicability of the extended period of limitation has not been considered. learned counsel while fairly admitting that there is no recording in the tribunal's order that such a plea was raised by the appellants, yet drew our attention to para 7.4 of the appeal memorandum where the plea has been specifically raised and to the synopsis filed at the time of hearing of the appeal where also the plea has been raised. he therefore submits that the application may be allowed and the appeal may be listed for re-hearing.2. the prayer is opposed by the learned sdk on the ground that (a) there is nothing on record to show that such a plea was argued; (b) the order was dictated in the court as was the practice in that particular court and therefore it was open to the appellants to point out to the bench that the plea regarding time bar no finding thereupon was recorded. he therefore prays that the application be dismissed as no error arises from the order of the tribunal.3. we have considered the rival submissions. we note that the plea regarding time bar was raised by the appellants in their appeal as well as in the synopsis filed at the time of hearing of the appeal before the bench. the difficulty faced by us is that neither the counsel for the appellants, nor the dr nor the bench now hearing the application, were the ones who argued the matter or heard the matter when it was finally disposed of. however, in view of the fact that plea has been taken by the appellants in their appeal and no finding has been recorded in the tribunal's order we hold that this plea is required to be gone into by us and therefore allow the rom application and fix the appeal for hearing on 26/02/2004 on the plea of limitation.