2015 (10) TMI 1136 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal rejects rectification applications, upholds penalty, refuses adjournments. Larger Bench decision deemed invalid.

The Tribunal dismissed the rectification of mistake applications filed by two applicants, citing that the penalty imposed on them was valid despite a ... Rectification of mistake - Imposition of penalty - Held that:- applications are not in the nature of rectification of any mistake apparent on the record and therefore not entertainable. - Moreover in view of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Vee Kay Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, reported in [2011 (3) TMI 133 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT],the said decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal [2006 (10) TMI 146 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI [LB]] does not hold the field any more. - Rectification denied. Issues:1. Rectification of mistake application filed on the ground of larger bench decision.2. Number of adjournments allowed in Central Excise law.3. Entertainability of rectification of mistake applications.4. Impact of High Court judgment on the Larger Bench decision.Analysis:1. The case involved a rectification of mistake application filed by two applicants based on the ground that the penalty imposed on them should not have been upheld in light of a larger bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Steel Tubes of India Ltd. vs. CCE, Indore. The Tribunal had dismissed the appeals of various appellants, including the present two applicants, in an earlier order.2. The Tribunal noted that the rectification of mistake application had been adjourned multiple times at the request of the applicants. However, as per Central Excise law, no more than three adjournments can be given to a party even for the main appeal. Despite multiple adjournments already granted, the Tribunal decided not to grant further adjournment and proceeded to take up the applications on merit.3. Upon reviewing the Tribunal order and the rectification of mistake applications, the Tribunal found that the applications were not in the nature of rectifying any mistake apparent on the record. Therefore, the applications were deemed not entertainable on this ground.4. During the hearing, the Larger Bench decision cited by the applicants was not pressed, and in light of a judgment by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Vee Kay Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, the said decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal was no longer valid. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the rectification of mistake applications on both grounds of entertainability and merit.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the Tribunal, including the grounds for dismissing the rectification of mistake applications and the impact of relevant legal precedents on the case.