ORDER
S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. By this ROM application, the appellant is challenging the correctness of the Final Order No. 98 & 99/2007 dated 3.1.2007 passed against the appellant by this Bench. The findings rendered by this Bench in Para 6 is reproduced herein below.
6. We have considered the submissions made by both sides. We have extracted the finding portion from the Commissioner’s orders. The Commissioner has clearly noted that Shri Subhash Gupta was fully in charge of the Company as a whole time Director with effect from 1.5.1986 for a period of 5 years. There was RBI permission letter for withdrawal of money in his favour and there was correspondence with Vijaya Bank as noted in the Commissioner’s orders. The Commissioner has examined the evidence with regard to Shri Subhash Guptha being in charge of the day to day business affairs of the Company and that he was part of the management. He has played a vital role in the evasion of duty. Therefore, penalty under Rule 209A of CE Rules is imposable. However taking into consideration, the plea that the whole profit was to be absorbed by Shri M. Janaki Ram and his family and that he was only receiving paltry amounts and that today he is without any source of income and being an indigent person, therefore, we reduce the penalty to Rs. one lakh.
In Para 7, the Bench has considered the plea for deduction of penalty and penalty in respect of Shri Subhas Gupta has been reduced to Rs. 1,00,000/- lakh only. The appellant in this ROM Application has pointed out that the activity of company that is drawing wires from rods does not amount to manufacture as in the case of CCE v. Technoweld Industries, therefore, the question of imposing penalty does not arise. He also refers to several other judgments on this point and prays that there is a mistake apparent on record and therefore, the imposition of penalty on the appellant should be set aside.
2. The learned SDR submits that a clear finding has been given with regard to the manufacture and clearance of goods by the appellant and therefore, the question of recalling the Final Order does not arise. She distinguishes the judgment cited by the appellant in the ROM Application.
3. We agree with the learned SDR that this Bench cannot sit over the final order passed by the Tribunal to review its own order which has already been rendered. The Bench has clearly held that the activity of the appellant’s company amounts to manufacture and there was clandestine removal of goods. The finding given in this regard by the Commissioner in Order-in-Original No. 35/2004 dated 30.9.2004 has been upheld. This bench cannot review its own order. We are of the considered opinion that there is no mistake apparent on record for recall of the Final Order. There is no merit in this ROM application and the same is rejected.
(Pronounced and dictated in open Court)