ORDER
P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)
1. Through the present ROM, the appellants have sought the recall of the Final order dated 22-2-2002 [2002 (142) E.L.T. 106 (Tri. – Del.)] of the Tribunal by which their appeal against the order in original of the Commissioner of Central Excise dated 27-7-2001 was dismissed. The appellant have filed the written submissions through Counsel.
2. We have gone through the same and heard the learned SDR.
3. The main contention raised in the written submissions by the appellants is that the extended period of limitation under proviso to Section 11A(i) could not be invoked for demand of duty on the strength of show cause notice dated 14-12-2001 as the Department had full knowledge that the appellants were manufacturing and clearing the goods (Textile Printing Adhesive) by using the brand name of another persons since 1983. To prove knowledge on the part of the department, the facts have been detailed in the written submissions. They have also referred to the judgment in the case of Flender Macniell Gears v. CCE, 2001 (127) E.L.T. 582.
4. We find that all these relevant facts, circumstances and evidence had been considered and discussed in paras 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8 of the impugned final order. The ratio of the law laid down in both the above referred cases had also been discussed in para 5 of the order.
5. It is well settled that scope of ROM is quite limited under the law. The mistake of fact or law apparent on the record only can be corrected by the Tribunal/Courts, while dealing with the ROM of the aggrieved party and such a mistake must be obvious and patent mistake. It cannot be something which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasonings on the points on which there may be two opinions. In this context, reference may be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of CCE, Calcutta v. ASCU Ltd., . Therefore, non-appreciation of the facts, material/evidence placed on record by the Tribunal in the manner which the appellants desired cannot be taken to a mistake apparent on the face of the impugned final order so as to call for its recall and rehearing of the appeal. We do not find any merit in the ROM application of the appellants and the same is dismissed.