S.S. Kang, Member (J) - (1.)THE applicants filed this application for rectification of mistake in the Final Order No. 1031 -32/2003 -NB(S) dated 5.9.2003.
(2.)THE contention of the applicants is that the plea of jurisdiction read with Section 33 of the Central Excise Act was not considered while passing the final order. The contention of the applicants is also that the statements which were not signed by the excise officers are not admissible under the Central Excise Act. As these pleas were not considered by the Tribunal while passing the final order, therefore, there is a mistake in the final order.
(3.)FIND that in the present case, the issue before the Tribunal was whether unaccounted goods which were found in the factory were liable for confiscation and the Tribunal after relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Kriloskar Brothers Ltd. v. Union of India, 1988 (34) ELT 30 and decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory Ltd., 1986 (10) ECC 35 (A.P.) : 1987 (27) ELT 40 held that the goods were not entered in the statutory records were liable for confiscation and the manufacturer is liable for penal action. I find that the appellants challenged the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on various grounds. The issue of jurisdiction was not taken by the appellants in the grounds of appeal.
The appellants are not disputing the fact that the excess goods found in the factory. The only contention at the time of hearing was that the goods were found in the factory, therefore are not liable for confiscation. This issue was decided taking into consideration the above -mentioned decisions of the Hon'ble High Courts. In these circumstances, I find no error apparent on record which requires rectification, therefore ROM is dismissed.