ORDER
D.C. Mandal, Member (T)
1. By this Misc. Application the applicants have prayed for amendment of paragraph 8 of the ROM application. The Misc. Application has been allowed and the arguments of Smt. Wadhwa for the applicants and Miss Mann for the respondent have been heard on the ROM application. Smt. Wadhwa has argued that on 22-5-89, she argued on the question of denial of principles of natural justice inasmuch as the facility of cross-examining the accountant of the applicants’ firm was not given by the adjudicating authority. During the arguments on that point she prayed for remand of the matter to the original authority for re-adjudicating the case after observing the principles of natural justice and on that point the Tribunal reserved the order. She has also argued that in the appeal memorandum the applicants/appellants raised various grounds, vide grounds Nos. 2,3,4,5,6,1 & 9 of the appeal memorandum, on which she did not address any arguments. She has, therefore, stated that instead of dismissing the appeal, the Tribunal was to hear the appellants on other grounds and then pass an order considering the merits of the case. Since this has not been done, there is a mistake apparent on record, which may be corrected by the Tribunal. She has argued that such rectification of errors is permissible in view of the provision of Section 35C of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 and also the decisions of the Tribunal reported in 1987 (27) ELT 315 (Tribunal) in the case of Neelam Tin Industries, Kanpur v. Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur and 1989 (41) ELT 439 (Tri.) in the case of Bhim Sain v. Collector of Customs.
2. Miss Renuka Mann has left the matter to be decided by this Tribunal.
3. After hearing the arguments of Smt. Wadhwa and after going through the records, we modify our earlier order No. A/219/89-NRB, dated 28-6-1989 deleting the last two sentences of paragraph 13 and the whole of paragraph 14 of the said order. To this extent the ROM application is allowed. This decision has been pronounced in the open court.
4. The following para may be added as para 14 in our order dt. 28-6-1989 :-
“14. In the light of the foregoing discussions, we hold that the Collector of Central Excise & Customs, Chandigarh did not violate the principles of natural justice by not allowing the facility of cross-examination of the accountant of the appellants’ firm. The appeal should now be heard on merits on other grounds, other than the denial of principles of natural justice inasmuch as the cross-examination of the accountant was not allowed by the Collector. For this purpose, the appeal be listed for hearing before the regular Bench of the North Regional Bench. The appeal not to remain part-heard.”
