Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Meghraj Biscuits Indus. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of C. Ex. on 8 December, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2001(135)ELT602(TRI-DEL)
ORDER Lajja Ram, Member (T)
1. In the present application for rectification of mistake (ROM), the learned Counsel had submitted that the matter came up for final hearing before the Tribunal, but full submissions could not be made by the appellants and they prayed to file written submissions after the hearing and that there is no mention in the order of the Tribunal that their written submissions had been taken note of. He submits that it has caused mistake in the order and prays that the order be recalled and reheard.
2 Shri R.C. Sankhla, JDR, submits that the scope of the ROM application is limited and the matter has been decided after hearing both the sides and there is no mistake in the order which may call for rectification.
3. We have carefully considered the matter. The matter was heard on 18-2-2000, when Shri Rajesh Chibber, Advocate, appearing for the appellants had submitted that M/s. Kay Aar Biscuits (Pvt.) Ltd. owned the brand name 'Meghraj' in the year 1989 and during the period under consideration, M/s. Kay Aar Biscuits (Pvt.) Ltd. were not a working unit. The submissions of the learned Advocate are mentioned in Para 3 of the order. The matter was examined in detail and in the light of the agreement between M/s. Kay Aar Biscuits (Pvt.) Ltd. and M/s. Rich Food Products Pvt. Ltd., and in the light of the case law on the subject, the view taken was that the benefit of small-scale exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. was not available to the appellants.
4. After carefully considering the ROM application and after giving due consideration to the pleadings of the learned Advocate, we do not find any mistake which may call for rectification in terms of the relevant section of the Central Excises Act. We dismiss the ROM application. Ordered accordingly.