Mideast Integrated Steels Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

1. heard both sides and perused the record. the applications are for recall of our order dated 10-5-2005, dismissing the stay application no. e/713/2005 in appeal no. e/1015/2005. the present applications point out that the appellant has not been served notice of hearing and that is the reason for their failure to be present. learned senior counsel submits that tribunal is competent to recall the order passed in a case where party had not been served - budhian swain and ors.]. learned dr points out that it is well settled that tribunal cannot review its own order and submits that since the earlier order was passed on merits as well it cannot be recalled.2. we accept the applications for recall of the order since the same had been passed without notice to the appellant and proceed to consider the stay application afresh. duty in the present case is in regard to an eou and the demand has been made on the basis that the eou has ceased to be so. from the papers placed before us now, it is seen that the dgft authorities have vide letter dated 24th march, 2005, renewed the eou permission for another 5 years. it is also being pointed out that the appellant has started functioning as eou. law does not contemplate payment of excise duty by eou's on inputs procured by them.therefore, duty demand in the present case, is prima facie, not warranted. in view of this, the stay application is allowed and recovery stayed till disposal of the appeal. requirement for making pre-deposit is also waived.