Department's rectification applications under Section 35C dismissed as not maintainable against interim reference orders

CESTAT Chandigarh-LB held that rectification applications under Section 35C of Central Excise Act are not maintainable against interim orders of Larger Bench deciding references. Following precedents in Lal Chand Anand and Hico Enterprises, the Tribunal ruled that Section 35C applies only to final orders, not orders answering references. The department's contention that reference-deciding orders should be treated as final orders was rejected. Consequently, all five rectification applications filed by the department against the interim order were dismissed as not maintainable.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of applications for Rectification of Mistakes in an interim order.
2. Interpretation of statutory terms and expressions.
3. Application of common parlance versus trade parlance.
4. Relevance and consideration of dictionary meanings.
5. Consideration of Circulars and BIS Standards.
6. Scope of expressions in statutory and regulatory context.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of Applications for Rectification of Mistakes:
The primary issue was whether the applications for rectification of mistakes in the interim order dated 06.06.2023 were maintainable. The Tribunal examined the provisions of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of section 35C of the Central Excise Act. It was concluded that the interim order passed by the Larger Bench answering the reference made by a Division Bench of the Tribunal is not a final order as contemplated under sub-section (1) of section 35C. Therefore, applications filed under sub-section (2) of section 35C for rectification of mistakes in the interim order are not maintainable. This conclusion was supported by the Larger Bench decision in "Collector of Central Excise, Meerut and Others vs. Lal Chand Anand and Other" and "Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai vs. Hico Enterprises."

2. Interpretation of Statutory Terms and Expressions:
The Tribunal addressed the first mistake pointed out by the Revenue, which concerned the limitation of applying dictionary meanings to an expression not defined in a statute. The Tribunal noted that when a word is not defined in the statute, it is permissible to refer to dictionaries to find out the general sense in which that word is understood in common parlance. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court decision in "CIT vs. Venkateswara Hatcheries (P) Ltd" to support this view.

3. Application of Common Parlance versus Trade Parlance:
Regarding the second mistake, the Tribunal contended that "automobile" is a term of ordinary usage and not a scientific or technical term. Therefore, ordinary meaning/common meaning would be relevant, and dictionaries can be safely referred to for ascertaining its meaning. The Tribunal clarified that the issue referred to the Larger Bench was not about whether trade parlance/commercial parlance should be resorted to.

4. Relevance and Consideration of Dictionary Meanings:
For the third mistake, the Tribunal noted that relevant extracts of various dictionaries defining "automobile" were enclosed in the Compilation Volume-I submitted in Excise Appeal No. 791-793 of 2012. It was clear from these extracts that "automobile" is a vehicle carrying a small quantity of goods. The Tribunal referred to Black's Law Dictionary for ascertaining the meaning of a word not defined in the statute, as observed by the Supreme Court in "Venkateswara Hatcheries."

5. Consideration of Circulars and BIS Standards:
Regarding the fourth mistake, the Tribunal contended that the three Circulars of the Central Board of Excise and Customs represent the understanding of the Board for finding out the meaning of the term "automobile," which has not been defined in the statute. Thus, these Circulars provide an answer as well as direction to the first question referred to the Larger Bench. For the fifth mistake, the Tribunal noted that BIS Standard relates to "automotive vehicles" and cannot be equated with the term "automobiles."

6. Scope of Expressions in Statutory and Regulatory Context:
Regarding the sixth mistake, the Tribunal contended that the Revenue failed to establish that the parts referred to are common for automotive vehicles in the show cause notice. There was no basis to allege that the aforesaid parts are common to all automotive vehicles. In the absence of such an allegation in the show cause notice, the Revenue cannot raise this issue.

Conclusion:
The applications filed by the department for rectification of mistakes in the interim order dated 06.06.2023 were rejected as they were not maintainable. The Tribunal did not find it necessary to examine whether the Revenue was practically seeking a review of the order or whether the alleged mistakes needed rectification. The five applications for rectification of mistakes were accordingly rejected.

---