2004 (6) TMI 369 - AT - Central Excise

Manufacturing declaration impacts duty liability. Tribunal rectifies order emphasizing disclosure and rebuttal importance.

DSM ANTI-INFECTIVES INDIA (PVT.) LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH

The Tribunal upheld that re-processing operations by the Applicants constitute deemed manufacture under Central Excise Rules. It found the extended ... Rectification of mistake Issues:Rectification of mistake in Tribunal's Final Order regarding re-processing operations deemed as manufacture under Central Excise Rules and extended period of limitation for demanding duty.Analysis:The application for rectification of mistake in the Tribunal's Final Order focused on two main issues. Firstly, whether the re-processing operations undertaken by the Applicants on the duty paid bulk drugs amount to deemed manufacture under Note 11 to Chapter 29 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The Tribunal upheld the Orders-in-Original, stating that the re-processing operations constitute deemed manufacture. Additionally, the Tribunal found that the extended period of limitation for demanding duty is applicable due to the lack of disclosure of the actual process during the filing of D-3 declaration. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of accurate declarations and noted the Revenue's claim of value addition in the re-processed goods, which the Applicants failed to rebut effectively.The Applicant's representative argued that the Tribunal's observation regarding the declaration filed with the Department was a mistake apparent on record. They contended that the Applicants had clearly mentioned 'Rejected materials received for reprocessing under Rule I73H' in the declarations, contrary to the Tribunal's assertion. The representative also disputed the alleged mis-declaration of mentioning only 'Testing' in the D-3 declarations, emphasizing the lack of such claims in the show cause notice or the impugned Order. Another contention was that the Revenue did not allege any value addition to the reprocessed goods, making the question of rebuttal irrelevant.The Senior Departmental Representative opposed the rectification, citing that the Applicants had indeed mentioned value addition in the synopsis submitted during the hearing. They argued that the extended period of limitation was justified due to the lack of disclosure of the exact processes undertaken on the duty paid goods. The Departmental Representative emphasized that the Applicants had mis-declared the goods as received back for 'Testing' only, leading to suppression of the actual processes carried out.The Tribunal carefully considered both parties' submissions. They found that the Applicants had indeed mentioned value addition in the synopsis submitted by their Consultant, refuting the claim of a mistake on this aspect. However, regarding the alleged mis-declaration of the goods being received back only for 'Testing,' the Tribunal reviewed the record and found that the D-3 declaration clearly stated 'Rejected material received for re-processing under Rule 173H.' As a result, the Tribunal concluded that there was a mistake apparent on the record in this regard and ordered that the extended period of limitation is not applicable. Consequently, the Tribunal modified its Final Order to rectify this mistake, providing clarity on the issue of extended limitation period for demanding duty.