G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J)

1. These are two applications. ROM No. 415/02 is filed by the department whereas ROM No. 4/03 is filed by the party with reference to the Final Order No. 1087/2002, dated 14-8-2002 [2002 (148) E.L.T. 41 (Tri. - Bang.)] on the ground that mistake has crept in. It was submitted by both sides that the Tribunal Order dealt with one type of scrap generated/cleared by the party that the scrap arising out the broken moulds, but has not considered and examined the issue in respect of the scrap generated by the mechanical operations. Accordingly, it was pointed out that since no finding is forthcoming with reference to one of the issues, the mistake has crept in and same is required to be rectified.

2. Shri Narasimha Murthy appearing for the Revenue fairly conceded that since the point taken in the appeal memo has not been considered it is an error of judgment and in the absence of finding on the specific plea, it amounts to rejection of such plea as it was held by the Tribunal in the case of Metal Extruders (I) Pvt. Ltd. [1985 (19) E.L.T. 198 (Tri.)].

3. Shri Shivadass submitted that though appeal has been allowed in total in favour of the assessee, he pointed out that one of the issues has not been dealt with in detail as rightly pointed out by the other side and relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Richardson & Cruddas Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai reported in 2002 (145) E.L.T. 168 (T) = 2002 (49) RLT 239, he said that not giving a finding amounts to a mistake apparent from the record.

4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. In view of the conflicting views expressed in the decisions referred to by both sides and particularly in view of the fact that the order was dictated in open court, we do not find any substance in the applications filed by the respective sides to rectify the mistake as pointed out. In the result, these two applications are hereby rejected.