Tribunal dismisses department's rectification application, citing lack of new evidence.

The Tribunal rejected the department's application for rectification of an apparent mistake in the Final Order, emphasizing that the essential facts were already considered during the hearing. The Tribunal found the arguments unconvincing, stating that the cited case was not applicable as the samples in question were not cleared for testing. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that arguments based on specific rules were beyond the scope of the show-cause notice. The application was dismissed as an attempt to re-argue the case, deemed beyond the scope of the relevant legal provision.

---

---

Issues:
Rectification of apparent mistake in Final Order No. 440/2012 dated 06.07.2012 passed by the bench.

Analysis:
The department filed an application seeking rectification of an apparent mistake in the Final Order passed by the bench. The Superintendent (AR) submitted that a decision in Positive Packaging Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raigad favored the department but was mentioned in the Final Order in a context favorable to the appellant. He argued that the appellant should have applied for remission of duty for control samples of pesticides that were destroyed without intimation to the department. The Superintendent also highlighted the appellant's failure to account for test samples and maintain proper records. However, the Tribunal found the plea for modification of the Final Order unconvincing, noting that the essential facts of the case were already considered during the hearing. The Tribunal explained that the decision in Positive Packaging Industries case was not applicable as the samples in question were not cleared from the factory for testing, unlike in the cited case. The Tribunal also observed that the arguments based on Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules were beyond the scope of the show-cause notice issued in this case.

The Tribunal rejected the application, stating that the alleged apparent mistake did not exist and that the application seemed to be an attempt to re-argue the case, which was beyond the scope of Section 35C (2) of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal clarified that an error to be rectified under this provision should be evident on the record and not require a lengthy process of arguments. Consequently, the application seeking rectification was dismissed by the Tribunal.

---