2004 (9) TMI 220 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Denies Rectification of Mistake Application, Emphasizes Criteria for Rectification

CHAMUNDI DIE CAST (P) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BANGALORE

The Tribunal rejected the Rectification of Mistake (ROM) application, determining that the issues raised were either already addressed in the Final Order ... Rectification of mistake Issues:Rectification of mistake in the Final Order, Classification of goods under CSH 8432, Time bar for invoking larger period under proviso to Section 11A, Mistake apparent on the face of the record.Rectification of Mistake in the Final Order:The ROM application sought rectification of a mistake in the Final Order, arguing that certain contentions were not adequately addressed. The appellant contended that a particular case law was not considered, which led to a misclassification of goods. Additionally, the issue of revenue neutrality and the applicability of a larger period under Section 11A proviso were raised. However, the Tribunal found that these arguments were not pleaded or referred to during the hearing. As such, the Tribunal concluded that there was no mistake apparent in the order requiring rectification.Classification of Goods under CSH 8432:The appellant argued that goods in question should be classified under CSH 8432 for exemption benefits, citing relevant case law. However, the Tribunal noted that this argument was already examined and addressed in the Final Order. The Tribunal found that the appellant's assertion regarding the classification had already been considered, and there was no mistake in this regard.Time Bar for Invoking Larger Period under Proviso to Section 11A:Regarding the time bar issue, the appellant contended that in cases of revenue neutrality, invoking a larger period under Section 11A proviso was not necessary. Reference was made to a Supreme Court judgment and observations of Justice K. Sreedharan and Member V.K. Asthana. However, the Tribunal determined that these arguments were not raised during the hearing and were not part of the appeal. As such, the Tribunal held that there was no mistake apparent on record concerning the time bar issue.Mistake Apparent on the Face of the Record:The Revenue argued that there was no mistake apparent in the Tribunal's order. Citing Supreme Court and Tribunal judgments, it was contended that a mistake must be obvious and patent to warrant rectification. The Revenue emphasized that a decision on a debatable point of law did not constitute a mistake apparent from the record. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the issues raised by the appellants were already considered and decided in the order, and thus did not amount to a mistake requiring rectification.In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the Rectification of Mistake (ROM) application, finding that the issues raised were either already addressed in the Final Order or were not pleaded or referred to during the hearing. The Tribunal emphasized that for a mistake to be rectified, it must be apparent on the face of the record, which was not the case with the contentions raised by the appellant.