CHISTIA TEXTURISING Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule in both the petitions. Ms. Nayna K. Gadhvi, learned Addl. Standing Counsel with Shri Jitendra Malkan, Standing Counsel waive service of Rule for the respondents.

(2.) Both these petitions are disposed of by this common order as they are arising out of impugned common order dated 24-7-2003 passed by CEGAT, West Zonal Bench at Mumbai, dismissing the Appeals of both the petitioners filed before it.

(3.) Serious grievance is made by learned Counsel Ms. Thakore for the petitioners in both these petitions that though the binding decisions of CEGAT itself was cited the same were not considered by the learned Single Member of the CEGAT and without considering the same their Appeals were dismissed. Ms. Thakore further submitted that Modification Application was rejected by another learned Single Member of CEGAT on the ground that not considering the decision of the learned Single Member of CEGAT cannot be said to be a mistake on facts on record, therefore, the order cannot be interfered by him. It is not in disputed that before the learned Single Member of CEGAT the decisions rendered by the learned Single Member of CEGAT were cited, but not considered and dealt with in the impugned order. There is also 2 Members Bench decision of CEGAT in the case of Mysore Trading Co . V/s. Commissioner of Central Excise Bangalore, 1999 107 ELT 68, the same was also not considered. However, another learned Single Member of the CEGAT refused to entertain modification Application on the ground that it cannot be said to be an error on the face of the record.