1992 (2) TMI 236 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal dismisses challenge on classification & credit approval, grants partial extension for credit reversal.

AMCO BATTERIES LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

AMCO BATTERIES LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE - 1993 (66) E.L.T. 670 (Tribunal) Issues:1. Challenge to classification approval by the Department.2. Validity of input credit claimed by the petitioner.3. Scope of rectification application under Section 35C of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.4. Request for time extension to reverse credit.Analysis:Issue 1: Challenge to classification approval by the DepartmentThe Tribunal noted that the Department challenged the classification approval given by the Assistant Collector, leading to a subsequent classification under Heading 59.09 by the appellate authority. The petitioner had initially taken input credit based on the original classification under Tariff Heading 85.07. The petitioner argued that this change in classification would adversely affect their rights. However, the Tribunal held that the petitioner cannot seek relief under Section 35C of the Act as the plea was not raised during the submissions in court. The Tribunal emphasized that rectification applications are limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, the plea to reconsider the classification was deemed outside the scope of Section 35C, and the application was dismissed.Issue 2: Validity of input credit claimed by the petitionerThe petitioner contended that the input credit claimed based on the original classification should not be disturbed, even though it was not specifically raised during the appeal hearing. The Tribunal, however, maintained that the grounds of appeal cannot be considered post conclusion of the matter, especially when not argued during the hearing. Reopening the matter at this stage would amount to reviewing the order, which is impermissible under the law. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the application and dismissed it.Issue 3: Scope of rectification application under Section 35CThe Tribunal clarified that rectification applications under Section 35C are limited in scope and can only rectify errors apparent on the face of the record. The mere inclusion of grounds in the appeal does not entitle a party to seek relief post conclusion of the matter. The Tribunal emphasized that arguments not presented during the hearing cannot be considered afterward, as it would amount to reviewing the order, which is prohibited by law.Issue 4: Request for time extension to reverse creditThe petitioner requested a time extension to reverse the credit claimed, citing potential irreparable hardship. The Tribunal granted a partial extension, directing the petitioner to reverse 50% of the credit by a specified date and the remaining balance by a later date. This decision aimed to balance the petitioner's concerns with the need for compliance with the directive.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the application challenging the classification approval and input credit, emphasizing the limited scope of rectification applications and the prohibition against reviewing orders post conclusion of the matter. The decision also granted a partial extension for the reversal of credit to address the petitioner's concerns.