Tribunal Upholds Decision; Dismisses Rectification Request, Errors Not 'Apparent on Record' Under Central Excise Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the Appellant's Application for Rectification of Mistake (ROM) against its final Order, concluding that the alleged errors did not qualify as 'Errors apparent on the record' under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1994. The Tribunal determined that addressing these errors would effectively modify the original Order, which is impermissible. It advised that the appropriate remedy for the Appellant is to pursue an appeal before a superior appellate forum, rather than seeking rectification through a ROM. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld its original decision, denying the Appellant's request for rectification.

---

---

Issues involved: Application for Rectification of Mistake (ROM) against final Order, invocation of extended period for demanding duty, non-payment of duty known to Department, reliance on Board's Circular, applicability of Supreme Court decision, challenge to Tribunal's order, consideration of limitation issue, jurisdiction of Tribunal under Section 35C(2) of the Act, rectification of mistakes apparent from the record.

Summary:
1. The Appellant filed an Application for Rectification of Mistake (ROM) against the final Order passed by the Tribunal, arguing that the Adjudicating authority exceeded the scope of the Show Cause Notice by confirming the demand based on machine usage for stitching. The Appellant contended that the non-disclosure of machine usage did not amount to suppression of fact, and hence, the extended period for demanding duty should not have been invoked. The Appellant also referenced a Supreme Court decision and a Circular issued by the Board in support of their case, seeking rectification u/s 35 C (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1994.

2. The Appellant further argued that they had declared non-payment of duty in accordance with the Board's Circular, and since the Department was aware of this, there was no suppression involved. However, the Show Cause Notice issued beyond the normal period of one year rendered the demand unsustainable.

3. The Appellant cited various case laws in support of their arguments, while the Authorized Representative for the department emphasized that the decision of the Supreme Court had been duly considered by the Adjudicating authority and the Tribunal, and any challenge should be through an appeal rather than a ROM application.

4. After hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal found that the errors cited by the Appellant did not qualify as 'Errors apparent on the record' under Section 35C(2) of the Act. The Tribunal emphasized that revising these errors would amount to modifying the order itself, which was not permissible under the Act.

5. The Tribunal dismissed the ROM filed by the Appellant, stating that the issues raised had been discussed and considered in the Final Order, and the remedy available was to file an appeal before the superior appellate forum rather than seeking rectification through ROM.

6. In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the issues raised by the Appellant could not be rectified under the ROM Application, and therefore, the ROM was dismissed.

---