Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
South India Television (P) Ltd. vs Cce on 7 January, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(68)ECC610, 2001(136)ELT243(TRI-DEL)
ORDER G.R. Sharma, Member (T)
1. M/s. South Indian Televisions (P) Ltd. have filed an application stating that a mistake has crept in the order of the Tribunal. Arguing the application, Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay, Ld. Consultant submits that the authorities below observed that 2971 pcs. of T.D. Ms (two in one) were found in excess and the redemption fine for these 2971 pcs. was Rs. 2 Lakhs. He submits that the Tribunal accepted that the excess after allowing clearance during the period was of the order of 1403 pcs. He submits that the quantity of excess 'two in ones' was thus reduced to half but the redemption fine was allowed as Rs. 2 lakhs. He submits that thus there was a mistake in the order. He cites a number of decisions of this Tribunal in support of his contention that the allegation was that non-accountal and for non-accountal of the goods penalty and the redemption fine could not be so harsh. He submitted that in view of the Tribunal decisions in the case of National Winders v. CCE, Allahabad , in the case of Indian Communication Cable Co. v. CCE, New Delhi reported in 1997 (23) RLT 145 (CEGAT) in the case of Diamond Traders v. CC, Trichy , in the case of K.R. Steel Industries v. CCE, Calcutta-II and some other cases the mistake is obvious. He therefore prays that since it was a simple case of non-accountal confiscation of the goods was not warranted. Since the confiscation was not warranted the question of redemption fine did not arise.
2. Ld. Counsel pleaded that the quantum of redemption fine may be refixed depending upon the quantum of goods confiscated.
3. Shri Mewa Singh, Ld. SDR submits that the request of the appellant was not for any mistake rectification but was virtual request for recalling the order and reviewing it. He therefore prays that since there was no mistake in the order of the Tribunal, the ROM of the applicant may be rejected.
4. We have heard both the sides. We have also perused the case law cited by the Ld. Consultant for the applicant. We find that what has been considered as a mistake is actually the appreciation of the evidence. The Tribunal had considered this aspect in its order and after considering the various facts of the case had allowed the redemption fine to remain at the level imposed by the authorities blow and after careful consideration had reduced the penalty. Imposition of the redemption fine and penalty is based on appreciation of the facts. Since there is no mistake apparent on the face of the record, the ROM application is rejected.