VISHWAKARMA ALLOYS LTD. Vs. CCE, CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS ROM petition is in respect of the Final Order No. A/1584/00/NB (SM) dated 17.8.2000 of the Tribunal. The appellants are on Induction Furnace Unit paying duty in terms of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. They claimed abatement from payment of duty under Rule 96ZO (2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 for closure of their furnace during the period from 11.2.98 to 5.3.98. This abatement claim was rejected by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh vide his Order dated 29.3.2000 on the ground that they failed to intimate the opening stock of finished goods at the time of re -commencement of the units as required as per clause (d) of Rule 96ZO (2).

(2.) THE above order of the Commissioner is upheld by the impugned order of the Tribunal.

(3.) THE petitioners are not represented and vide their letter dated 6.12.2000 they have requested to decide the matter on the merits of the case. I have heard Sh. S.C. Pushkarna, ld. JDR for the Revenue. It is contended by the petitioners that the above orders of the Tribunal is not correct as it ignores the judgement dated 26.4.2000 in the case of Aishwarya Ispat (P) Ltd. Vs CCE, Kanpur [2000 (120) ELT 730 (T)], which was pronounced long before the present order. It was held in that case that non -intimation of closing stock is a procedural lapse and the substantive benefit of abatement should not be denied for procedural (SIC) In this regard it is observed that in para 9 of the Larger Bench decision in the case of Dinkar Khindria Vs. Collector of Customs [2000 (38) RLT 442 (CEGAT -L.B.)], it is observed, "on careful consideration of the matter, we hold that a decision which has been validly made by a duly constituted Bench is not open for review on the alleged ground that according to the applicants the decision was erroneous on fact or law. In any case, the Tribunal has no power to review its orders. This Tribunal is a creation of the statute. Only the powers conferred under the statute, which created it, can be exercised. It has no inherent powers as are available with courts established under the Constitution or Codes of Civil Procedure or Criminal Procedure. This Tribunal under no circumstance can recall an order passed or issued. Under the cover of "rectification of mistake" this Tribunal cannot exercise any power to recall an order validly passed."