2001 (10) TMI 618 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
Rectification of mistake claimed in an order regarding refund claim filed under Section 35E of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Rectification of Mistake Claim:
The applicants filed a refund claim which was initially allowed and sanctioned by the Assistant Collector. Subsequently, an application was made before the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 35E(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, resulting in the reversal of the lower order. The applicants contended before the Tribunal that the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was filed beyond the statutory period of one year. However, the Tribunal held that the appeal was filed within the permissible time frame. The applicants further argued that the appeal was filed after five months from the date of communication of the Collector's decision, thus barred by limitation under Section 35E(4) of the Act.

2. Interpretation of Section 35E(4):
The Tribunal examined the provisions of Section 35E(4) which specify a three-month period for the Assistant Commissioner to file an appeal. The applicants claimed that the appeal was filed after five months from the date of communication of the Collector's decision, which exceeded the prescribed time limit. However, the Tribunal noted that the application for rectification of mistake clarified that the appeal was actually filed within the stipulated time frame, based on the dates of communication and filing of the application.

3. Delay in Communication and Filing:
The representative for the applicants raised concerns about the inordinate delay in the communication of the application copy and questioned whether the application was filed within time before the Collector (Appeals). The Tribunal dismissed these arguments, stating that the delay in communication did not impact the filing timeline, and the absence of specific indications regarding the filing date before the Collector (Appeals) was not sufficient grounds for rectification.

4. Merits of the Rectification Application:
The Tribunal thoroughly considered the submissions made by the applicants' representative and found no substantial reason to deviate from the original order. It was emphasized that the lack of discussion on certain issues by the Commissioner (Appeals) did not affect the validity of the appeal process. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the rectification application lacked merit and was dismissed based on the evidence presented.

In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai addressed the rectification of a mistake claimed in an order related to a refund claim under Section 35E of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The analysis focused on the interpretation of statutory provisions, timelines for filing appeals, delays in communication, and the substantive merits of the rectification application. The Tribunal ultimately upheld the original order, dismissing the rectification application for lack of merit.