2011 (8) TMI 25 - SC - Central Excise

CESTAT exceeded powers under Section 35C(2) by re-evaluating evidence in rectification; rectification order quashed and set aside

COMMISSIONER OF CENTAL EXCISE, BELAPUR, MUMBAI Versus RDC CONCRETE (INDIA) P. LTD.

SC held that CESTAT exceeded its powers under Section 35C(2) by re-appreciating evidence and revisiting its prior legal view in a rectification ... Jurisdiction of CESTAT under Section 35C(2) - Power to rectify mistake - Revenue submitted that the CESTAT has limited power to rectify its mistake under the provision of Section 35C(2) of the Act - HELD THAT:- The view that the CESTAT exceeded its powers and it tried to re-appreciate the evidence and it reconsidered its legal view taken earlier in pursuance of a rectification application - Thus, CESTAT could not have done so while exercising its powers u/s 35C(2) of the Act, and, therefore, the impugned order passed in pursuance of the rectification application is bad in law and, therefore, the said order is hereby quashed and set aside - the case of T.S. Balram v. M/s. Volkart Brothers [1971 (8) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT], this Court has already decided that power to rectify a mistake should be exercised when the mistake is a patent one and should be quite obvious - As stated hereinabove, the mistake cannot be such which can be ascertained by a long drawn process of reasoning. Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of CESTAT under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.2. Legitimacy of appointing a Cost Accountant who is an employee of the Excise Department.3. Re-appreciation of evidence by CESTAT in rectification proceedings.Detailed Analysis:Jurisdiction of CESTAT under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944:The primary issue revolves around whether the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, while rectifying its earlier order. The appellant argued that CESTAT's power to rectify is limited to correcting mistakes apparent from the record and cannot extend to modifying the legal view or reappreciating evidence. The Supreme Court agreed with the appellant, stating that a 'mistake apparent from the record' cannot be something that requires a long drawn process of reasoning or involves debatable points of law. The Court emphasized that the CESTAT had reappreciated evidence and changed its legal view, which is not permissible under Section 35C(2).Legitimacy of appointing a Cost Accountant who is an employee of the Excise Department:The respondent had objected to the appointment of a Cost Accountant who was an employee of the Excise Department, arguing that only a practicing Cost Accountant should be appointed. Initially, CESTAT had rejected this objection, stating that the Act or Rules did not mandate that only a practicing Cost Accountant could be appointed. However, upon rectification, CESTAT accepted the respondent's argument and modified its order, leading to the quashing of the entire duty demand and penalties. The Supreme Court found this change in stance unjustified, stating that the CESTAT had no grounds to conclude that the Cost Accountant should be in practice and not an employee of the department.Re-appreciation of evidence by CESTAT in rectification proceedings:The appellant contended that CESTAT had reappreciated evidence and arrived at different conclusions during the rectification proceedings, which is beyond its scope under Section 35C(2). Initially, CESTAT had concluded that the respondent company sold goods to an inter-connected company at a lower price to evade duty. However, in the rectification order, CESTAT changed its view, stating that the companies were not inter-connected. The Supreme Court held that reappreciation of evidence and changing of legal conclusions do not constitute rectification of a mistake apparent on record. The Court reiterated that a mistake apparent on record must be an obvious and patent mistake, not one that requires detailed reasoning or involves debatable points.Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that CESTAT exceeded its powers under Section 35C(2) by reappreciating evidence and changing its legal view, which is not permissible. The impugned order passed by CESTAT in pursuance of the rectification application was quashed and set aside. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.