2002 (4) TMI 689 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Rectification of order passed in earlier ROM by Revenue.
2. Contestation of ROM by assessee.
3. Rectification sought by assessee regarding rate of duty applicability.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Rectification of order passed in earlier ROM by Revenue
The Revenue filed a ROM seeking rectification in the order passed in the earlier ROM of the assessee. The Tribunal had ordered the deletion of a specific sentence from the final order dated 29-10-99. The Revenue contended that the sentence should not have been deleted and sought an amendment to their ROM. However, the Tribunal held that the scope of ROM is limited to correcting mistakes of fact or law apparent on the face of the record. As there was no such mistake in the previous orders, the Tribunal dismissed the ROM filed by the Revenue.

Issue 2: Contestation of ROM by assessee
The assessee contested the ROM filed by the Revenue. The Tribunal had previously allowed the assessee's ROM seeking rectification of a mistake in the original final order. The Revenue argued that the sentence deleted from the order should not have been removed. However, the Tribunal reiterated that the power of the Tribunal in ROM is restricted to rectifying mistakes evident on the face of the record. As the Revenue's dissatisfaction with the previous order did not constitute a valid ground for rectification, the Tribunal dismissed the ROM filed by the Revenue.

Issue 3: Rectification sought by assessee regarding rate of duty applicability
The assessee moved a ROM seeking recall of the original final order, claiming that a crucial observation by the Apex Court had been overlooked by the Tribunal. The assessee argued that the applicable rate of duty was under Section 15(1)(c) of the Customs Act, not Section 15(1)(b). However, the Tribunal noted that this argument had been presented during the initial hearing and was thoroughly considered before being rejected. The Tribunal emphasized that a ROM is only maintainable in cases where there is a glaring and obvious mistake on the face of the order. Since the issue of duty rate applicability was debatable and had already been decided against the assessee with detailed reasoning, the Tribunal dismissed the ROM filed by the assessee.

In conclusion, both ROM applications were dismissed by the Tribunal as they did not reveal any evident mistakes of fact or law warranting rectification. The judgments cited by the Tribunal emphasized that mere disagreement with the decision or interpretation of law does not constitute a valid ground for seeking rectification through a ROM.