TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (4) TMI 68
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Rs. 40,519/- and imposing penalty of Rs. 5,000/- under Rule 173-Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2. Sub-section (2) of Section 35-C of the Central Excise Act provides that the Appellate Tribunal may, at any time, within six months from the date of the order, rectify any mistake apparent from the record and amend any order passed by it under sub-section (1) on application made in that behalf either by the Revenue or the other party to the appeal i.e. the assessee. In view of the limitation of six months within which the Appellate Tribunal may rectify any mistake in its order, it is clear that the application in this behalf has to be made within the period of six months. 3. The present application appears to have been listed befor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....like to observe that though we have not gone into the question as to whether the application was filed within time, we are not able to appreciate the conduct of the appellant in not pursuing the application for over six years until they sent the aforesaid letter dated 18-12-2006 which led to 'reconstruction' of the record. If the applicant had indeed filed the application within time i.e. in the year 2000, in the ordinary course, as a prudent litigant, they would have followed up the matter in right earnest. 5. Be that as it may, the question which we propose to address and consider is whether the application is maintainable within the frame work of sub-section (2) of Section 35-C of the Act. Though we have referred to the provis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A.P.); (vi) Aarpee Electricals (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore, 2005 (189) E.L.T. 437 (T. Bang); (vii) Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Autocratic Indus. Ltd., 2004 (177) E.L.T. 1110 (T.-Del.); (viii) Chinttapurni Engg. v. CCE, Lucknow, 2003 (158) E.L.T. 535 (T-Del.); and (ix) H.P.L. Chemicals Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh-I, 2003 (154) E.L.T. 435 (T. Del). 8. A salient feature of almost all the decisions is that the cases involved the question of time bar i.e. limitation. In Baroda Rayon Corporation Ltd. (supra) the Tribunal while dismissing the appeal of the assessee had rejected its contention that the demand was time barred and the rectification application was rejected....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Tribunal's order. In the case of RPG Life Sciences Ltd. (supra) the High Court found that the Tribunal had failed to take into consideration the decision of the Supreme Court and this was held to be an error apparent on the face of the re cord. In the case of Bharat Metal Box Co. (supra) it was held that the order applying the extended period of limitation in the facts of the case was an error apparent on the face of the record. In the case of Aarpee Electricals Pvt. Ltd. (supra) the final order was modified to the extent of imposition of penalty on the ground that in the facts and circumstances no fraudulent motive could be attributed and, therefore, the larger period could not be invoked holding that there was an apparent error i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o such plea appears to have been taken by the applicant in the reply to the show cause notice or argued before the Collector, Central Excise, vide the Order-in-Original. No foundational facts were stated in the memo portion of the appeal. 11. A perusal of the rectification application suggests that the applicant is really interested in re-hearing of the appeal and it wants the dispute relating to classification to be re-opened and decided afresh by the Tribunal. No doubt, it has been stated that the plea of time bar was taken in para 7 of the grounds which not considered. We have already dealt with this aspect. It is relevant to mention here that at the time of filing the applicant had informed the Tribunal, by a letter, that on account ....