2020 (2) TMI 387 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal denies rectification application under Central Excise Act, emphasizing limitations on revisiting evidence.

Manikgarh Cement Versus Commissioner of Central Excise

The Tribunal rejected the appellant's application for rectification of a mistake in the order under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act 1944. The ... Rectification of mistake - time limitation - Section 35C (2) of the Central Excise Act 1944 - plea of limitation ignored by Tribunal - HELD THAT:- There is no denial of the fact that the points raised concerning non-application of extended period of limitation has not been specifically dealt with and findings have not been placed on record on the same - Perusal of show cause notice would reveal that for contravention of provision of Rule 2 & 3 of Cenvat credit rule and Rule 4, 6, 8 & 11 of Central Excise Rules 2002, the demand was raised and it was confirmed in the OIO and OIA on the ground that appellant had suppressed the fact that they were availing Cenvat Credit of service tax on such service which was not rendered by them. This being to the findings of the Tribunal, allowing rectification of mistake application so as to bring debatable points of law and fact for re-appreciation and analysis would defeat the purpose of the provision contained in the Central Excise Act for rectification of mistake and defeat the appeal procedure prescribed in the Statute too. The application filed for rectification of mistake, being devoid of merit, is rejected. Issues:1. Application for rectification of mistake in the order under Section 35C (2) of the Central Excise Act 1944.Analysis:The appellant sought rectification of a mistake in the order passed by the Tribunal, claiming that the plea of limitation, a primary ground of appeal, was ignored. The appellant argued that the Tribunal failed to address the limitation issue, which was crucial and supported by various legal precedents, including judgments of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. The appellant requested the inclusion of findings on the invocation of a larger period of limitation in the final order. However, the Authorized Representative for the respondent department contended that the Tribunal had already considered all submissions and legal judgments, concluding that the appellant's arguments regarding the limitation were not valid. The Authorized Representative cited a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing that the power of rectification cannot be used to re-evaluate evidence and reach a different conclusion. Therefore, the respondent argued against the rectification application, stating that the Tribunal's decision was in line with legal principles.The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and reviewing the order in question, noted that the issue of non-application of an extended period of limitation had not been specifically addressed in the original order. The demand was raised based on alleged contraventions of specific rules, and the Tribunal's order upheld the findings that the appellant had availed Cenvat Credit on services not rendered by them. The Tribunal emphasized that allowing rectification to re-examine debatable legal and factual points would undermine the purpose of rectification provisions in the Central Excise Act and disrupt the appeal process outlined in the statute. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the rectification application, deeming it lacking in merit. The decision was pronounced in court on a specified date.