2009 (11) TMI 613 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal clarifies limits of rectification under Section 35C(2), emphasizing correction of apparent mistakes.

NIPON ZIP INDUSTRY PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MUMBAI-V

The Tribunal dismissed the company's application for rectification of its order, emphasizing that rectification under Section 35C(2) is not for ... Demand - Rectification of mistakes - assessee seeks to re-appreciate the evidence available on record - One piece of evidence considered by the Bench is the confessional statement given by Shri Ramesh K. Shah for the entire period. Another piece of evidence consists of purchase orders placed on the assessee by certain parties - under Section 35C(2) of the Act, it is not open to us to enter into such re-appreciation of evidence - One need not dive into the facts and evidence of the case to identify the mistake, in the present case, the assessee has taken pains through their counsel to cull out what he calls apparent mistake, in the final order of the Tribunal - Appeal is dismissed Issues:Rectification of an apparent mistake in the Tribunal's order regarding reliance on documents for duty demand for specific periods.Analysis:The case involved an application filed by a company seeking rectification of an apparent mistake in the Tribunal's order related to the reliance on certain documents for confirming duty demand for specific periods. The company argued that the Tribunal mistakenly relied on documents from 2001-02 to support a statement made for 2000-2001, which was considered incorrect. The Tribunal had set aside the duty demand for 2001-02 based on the same statement, indicating inconsistency in the approach. The company contended that the evidence considered should be re-evaluated, but the Tribunal clarified that under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, rectification is only for mistakes apparent from the record, not for re-evaluating evidence based on new arguments. The Tribunal emphasized that the mistake to be rectified must be clear on the record, without requiring a detailed analysis of facts and evidence presented.The Tribunal carefully considered the submissions made by the company regarding the evidence used to determine duty liability for the relevant years. The evidence included a confessional statement by a director for the entire period and purchase orders placed on the company by certain parties. The company argued that the documents referred to clearances for 2001-02 and could not be used to support the director's statement for 2000-01. Despite the company's request for re-evaluation of evidence, the Tribunal reiterated that Section 35C(2) limits rectification to correcting mistakes evident from the record, not engaging in a fresh analysis of evidence based on new interpretations or arguments. The Tribunal emphasized that an apparent mistake must be clearly identifiable from the record without delving into a re-argument of the case.Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the company's application for rectification of the Tribunal's order, emphasizing that the rectification provision under Section 35C(2) is not meant for re-evaluating evidence or re-arguing issues already decided. The Tribunal maintained that rectification is only for correcting mistakes that are evident on the record and do not require a re-examination of facts or evidence. The decision highlighted the importance of clarity and specificity in identifying mistakes for rectification under the relevant legal provision, emphasizing that a mistake should be manifest on the record without the need for extensive analysis or reinterpretation of evidence.