SANDEEP BATRA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI J.S. Agarwal, ld. Advocate appearing in the ROM Application filed by Shri Sandeep Batra submits that the prayer made in the ROM Application is for recall of Final Order Nos. A/875 -877/98 -NB (DB), dated 9 -10 -1998 by which three appeals filed respectively by (i) M/s. Nova Udyog Ltd., (ii) M/s. Maharashtra Steels Ltd. and (iii) Shri Sandeep Batra (the present applicant) were heard and disposed of. On consideration of the submissions made by the appellants in the three appeals, the Tribunal was pleased to remand all the three appeals to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut for affording the appellants an opportunity to cross examine Shri O.P. Singh, Inspector.

(2.) LD . Counsel has contended that the appeal filed by Shri Sandeep Batra (the present applicant) was against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) imposing a penalty of Rs. 50,000/ - on the said Appellant under Rule 209 A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. In Paragraph 16 of the Final Order of the Tribunal, though the submissions of the Counsel for Shri Sandeep Batra had been dealt with (including his plea that he had not dealt with any excisable goods), the Tribunal while disposing of the three appeals by one combined order, no finding had been given on the submissions made by appellant, Shri Sandeep Batra in his appeal. Ld. Counsel submitted that this was a mistake apparent on the face of the record and, therefore, the Final Order may be recalled and the mistake rectified.

(3.) SHRI M.M. Pube, ld. JDR submitted in reply that the three appeals filed by M/s. Nova Udyog Ltd., M/s. Maharashtra Steels Ltd. and Shri Sandeep Batra arose from the same impugned order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut dated 11 -4 -1996 and the facts relating to the appeals were common and inter -related. They had therefore been heard together and disposed of by a common Final Order of the Tribunal. He submitted that no mistake apparent on the face of the record has been made out since the matter has been remanded for reconsideration and for affording the appellants an opportunity to cross -examine one of the Officers.