JUDGMENT
P.S. Bajaj, J.
1. None has come present on behalf of the applicants who have moved this ROM application. No request for adjournment has been also received from them. We find from the record that earlier on number of occasions, the ROM application had been adjournment on the request of the counsel. It appears that the applicants are not interested in pursuing the ROM application and as such the same is dismissed as not contested.
2. At this stage, the learned counsel has come present and stated that due to some personal reasons, he could not reach in time. We, therefore, in the interest of justice, recall the above order and restore the ROM application of the applicants.
3. Through the present ROM application, the applicants have sought rectification of the impugned final order dated 19.2.2002 vide which their appeal against the order-in-appeal was dismissed.
4. The learned counsel has contended that in para 6 of the impugned order, the Tribunal has observed that “No doubt, the report is silent regarding dressing condition of the yarn, but it was not the case of the appellants that they were selling yarn without dressing”. These observations, according to the learned counsel, are factually not correct. Similarly, another alleged mistake pointed out by the learned counsel is that, that the alternative submission of the applicants for the benefit of Notification No. 84/95 had been wrongly interpreted and taken by the Tribunal while deciding the case. The learned counsel has pointed out that in the order it has been wrongly observed that the yarn purchased by the applicants was not duty paid, rather it was a duty paid and the statement of Shri Prem Nath Minocha, partner of the applicants, could not be given much importance having been made by a layman and that he even otherwise never accepted that the yarn sold by them was a dressed one. The learned counsel has also contended that the duty quantification was wrongly made by the authorities below and the grounds of their challenge, before the Tribunal, have not been considered.
5. Another argument put in service by the learned counsel is that the benefit of the Notification No. 84/75-CE was denied by the authorities below on the ground that product of the applicants was sewing thread and not the yarn to which alone the exemption applied and this aspect has not been also considered by the Tribunal.
6. The learned SDR, on the other hand, has submitted that all the contentions raised by the learned counsel do not fall within the ambit/scope of the ROM application. According to him, it would only amount to re-hearing of the appeal on merits which is not permissible under the law.
7. We have heard both sides and gone through the record. At the very outset, it may be mentioned that we are dealing with the ROM application. The scope of the ROM application is quite limited, in the ROM application only a mistake apparent on the face of the record, can be ordered to be corrected. No re-appreciation of the evidence or re-valuation of the contentions of the counsel which were advanced while hearing the arguments of the applicants, on the merits of the appeal, can be done. The fact that the Tribunal has mis-interpreted the notification, statement of a witness and also not appreciated the evidence in the same perspective in which the learned counsel for the applicants, wanted or had drawn inferences on the basis of certain facts which could be avoided, cannot be made basis for recalling the final order. In this regard, reference may be made to the observations of the Apex Court in the case of CCE, Calcutta v. A.S.C.U. Ltd., 2003 (90) ECC 438 (SC) : 2003 (54) RLT 607, wherein the scope of the ROM application has been defined. It has been observed that a mistake apparent on the face of the record, must be an obvious and patent mistake. It cannot be something which would have to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on the point on which, there may be two opinions. If a decision is based on more than one material and reliance is placed on some material which could not have been used, that would not be a mistake apparent from the record. Following these observations of the Apex Court regarding the scope of the ROM application, in our view, all the above referred detailed contentions raised by the counsel, cannot be considered to hold that there exists any mistake on the face of record so as to call for the rectification in the impugned order. The Tribunal has taken a particular view on the basis of the facts and material brought on record. The fact that another view could also be taken, as contended by the learned counsel, cannot be taken into account, for allowing the ROM application.
8. In view of the discussion made above, the ROM application is dismissed.