2005 (9) TMI 379 - AT - Central Excise

H Court Orders Reconsideration of ROM Application for Duty Rate Appeal Decision

The High Court directed the Tribunal to reconsider the ROM application seeking the recall of Final Order No. 1393/1996. The denial of concessional duty ... Cement - Exemption - Rectification of mistake - Error apparent Issues:1. Application for recall of Final Order No. 1393/1996.2. Claim of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 154/90-C.E.3. Denial of exemption by Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise.4. Appeal before Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) and Tribunal.5. Alleged error in relying on previous order in Final Order No. 1393/1996.Analysis:1. The appellants filed a ROM application seeking the recall of Final Order No. 1393/1996, which was initially rejected by the Tribunal. However, the High Court directed the CESTAT to consider the ROM application, leading to a review of the case.2. The applicants, cement manufacturers, claimed a concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 154/90-C.E. The denial of this benefit by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise was based on the grounds that clinkers were purchased from outside sources, which raised a dispute regarding the applicability of the Notification.3. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) allowed the appeal filed by the applicants, emphasizing that the Notification did not prohibit the purchase of clinkers from external sources under any circumstances. This decision was challenged by the Collector of Central Excise, Coimbatore, leading to an appeal before the Tribunal.4. The Tribunal, in its Final Order No. 1393/1996, relied on a previous decision related to Notification No. 36/1987-C.E., which contained specific conditions regarding the use of clinkers from the same factory for manufacturing cement. However, the Notification in question, i.e., No. 154/90-C.E., did not impose such restrictions, leading to a perceived error in the Tribunal's decision.5. Upon careful review, it was established that the Notifications No. 154/90 and No. 36/1987 were distinct in their wording, with the latter containing the condition of using clinkers from the same factory, unlike the former. Consequently, the Tribunal was found to have erred in relying on its previous decision related to a different Notification, warranting the recall of the Final Order to rectify the mistake.In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of accurately interpreting and applying specific legal provisions, especially when dealing with different notifications that may have varying conditions. The decision to recall the Final Order was based on the recognition of a clear error in the Tribunal's reasoning, ensuring a fair and just resolution of the dispute for the appellants.