2018 (9) TMI 1651 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – Rectification of Mistake – case of applicant is that the benefit of DTA sale and Notification No. 23/2003-CE has been denied on the ground that the LOP mentioned these two by-products and there is no necessity for demarcation of by-products and that by such demarcation, the obligation case on the appellant could not be waived as these are not waste and scrap. That such finding is contradictory in nature – Held that:- An application for rectification is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an appeal can be reheard or decided. The ROM application is only for mistake which are patent. An error apparent on face of record means an error which is apparent on mere looking and does not require long drawn process of reasoning of points where there may be conceivable two opinions. Such error should not require any extraneous matter to show its incorrectness.
–
The contentions put forward are not errors apparent on face of record which require
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ara 7.1 of the impugned order, it is admitted that neem cake and neem oil are by-products in the course of manufacture and neemazal formula. It is observed that merely because these two by-products are mentioned in the LOP, they do not cease to be by-products. He stressed that it is not the case of the petitioner that neem cake and neem oil are waste and scrap. The order has presumed that the petitioners have contested that the said products are waste or scrap which is an error apparent on the face of record. Admittedly, these are only by-products. The finding of the Tribunal that categorization of neem oil and neem cake is not directly relevant to the dispute is not correct because under ITC Policy para 6.8(g), if the products are by-products then there is no requirement of exporting the same product or similar product as a pre-condition to claim DTA sale facility. 2.2 He submitted that the impugned final order has overlooked Appendix 14-I-H of Handbook of Procedure in LOP and the rel
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ave to be considered at the time of hearing an appeal and not while hearing an ROM application. It is his case that there are no such errors apparent on the face of record of the final order which requires Rectification. 4. Heard both sides. 5. From the submissions made by the ld. counsel as well as after perusing the ROM application, we find that the ld. counsel has put forward detail contentions stating to be errors in the impugned final order. These submissions touch the merits of the case. An application for rectification is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an appeal can be reheard or decided. The ROM application is only for mistake which are patent. An error apparent on face of record means an error which is apparent on mere looking and does not require long drawn process of reasoning of points where there may be conceivable two opinions. Such error should not require any extraneous matter to show its incorrectness. The mistake must be patent that its discovery does not r
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =