2001 (7) TMI 808 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Recall of Final Order under Section 35C of the Central Excise Act based on interpretation of witness statements and findings of the Collector of Central Excise.

Analysis:
The respondents filed an application seeking the recall of Final Order No. 44/2001-V dated 31-1-2001 under Section 35C of the Central Excise Act. The appeal was against the order in original dated 23-8-1991 of the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-II, which was reversed by the Tribunal. The respondents argued that the witness statements were not correctly interpreted, and the findings of the Collector regarding the use of power in the manufacture of tarpaulins were wrongly reversed by the Tribunal. The evidence of various individuals was claimed to have been misinterpreted, leading to an alleged mistake of fact in the final order that warranted recall. The learned Counsel for the respondents reiterated these grounds during arguments.

On the other hand, the learned SDR argued for the correctness of the impugned final order and contended that there was no mistake of fact or law apparent on the face of the order to warrant its recall. After hearing both sides and examining the record, the Tribunal found that the respondents were involved in the manufacture of tarpaulin cloth falling under a specific Chapter sub-heading. The investigation revealed that the respondents wrongly claimed exemption by alleging that they were manufacturing without the aid of power, despite the presence of machines with electric motors in their factory premises. The Collector dropped the proceedings, but the Revenue challenged this decision before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal, in the impugned final order, reversed the Collector's findings regarding the non-use of power in manufacturing tarpaulins after scrutinizing the evidence, including witness statements. The Tribunal set aside the Collector's order and directed a fresh decision in accordance with the law. The Tribunal concluded that the impugned final order did not contain any mistake of fact or law that would warrant its recall. The application for recall was deemed misconceived and without merit, leading to its dismissal. The Tribunal clarified that the application sought rehearing and rewriting of the order, which was impermissible under the law.

In summary, the Tribunal dismissed the application seeking the recall of the final order, emphasizing that there was no mistake of fact or law in the impugned order. The decision was based on a thorough examination of the evidence and the legal provisions, ultimately concluding that the recall was not warranted.