ORDER
S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. This ROM application has been filed by the party despite several opportunities given. They have not appeared to argue the ROM. It is mentioned that the matter also pertains to notional railway freight charges and there is a mistake in not mentioning in Para 7 of the Final order and the same may be mentioned in the order. Otherwise, the department would raise the hair split interpretation which may be detrimental to the appellants.
2. The learned DR submits that the issue pertaining to notional railway freight charges is also covered in the order in terms of the ruling rendered by the Tribunal in the case of Hyderabad Industries v. CCE, 1998 (102) E.L.T. 231 (T) and BPCL v. CCE, 2002 (142) E.L.T. 96 (T). In view of the submission that the final order also deals with notional freight charges as already mentioned in para 1 of the order. The ratio of the judgment cited covers this aspect also. The ROM is disposed by clarifying in the above light.
(Pronounced and dictated in open Court)