CESTAT Chennai Rejects Rectification Application for Modvat Credit Error

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI dismissed the appellant's rectification application seeking to correct a mistake in disallowing modvat credit on Steel Wire. The Tribunal held that rectification can only be made for apparent mistakes without reviewing the decision, citing Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. Vs CIT, Delhi. Additionally, the application was deemed time-barred under Section 35C (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as it was filed beyond the six-month period from the date of the final order. Consequently, the rectification application was rejected on both grounds.

---

---

Issues: Rectification of mistake apparent from record; Timeliness of application under Section 35C (2) of Central Excise Act, 1944

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI, the appellant sought rectification of a mistake regarding the disallowance of modvat credit on Steel Wire, citing a Supreme Court decision that reversed the Tribunal's earlier ruling. The Tribunal, however, dismissed the rectification application stating that rectification can be made for apparent mistakes without a review of the decision. The Tribunal relied on the principle established in Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. Vs CIT, Delhi. Consequently, the rectification application was rejected.

Regarding the timeliness of the application under Section 35C (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Tribunal noted that the final order was passed on 10.9.2015, and the rectification application was filed on 6.4.2016. The law stipulates that such applications should be filed within six months of the date of the order. The Tribunal analyzed Rule 26 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, to determine the date on which the order comes into effect. It was found that although both Members signed the order on 23.9.2015, the order was dictated on the Bench on 10.9.2015. Therefore, according to the rule, the final order date was 10.9.2015, and the application filed on 6.4.2016 was deemed time-barred. Consequently, the rectification application was dismissed on the grounds of timeliness as well.

---