1999 (6) TMI 435 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of mistake in Final Order No. 1374/97 regarding jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore, and consideration of other grounds raised by the appellants.

Analysis:
The appellants filed an application seeking rectification of a mistake in Final Order No. 1374/97 passed by previous Members. They argued that the matter was heard on a restricted point concerning the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore, in relation to demands from factories in Madurai. The appellants claimed that the appeal was decided without considering other grounds like 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8, which were raised in the main appeal. The appellants contended that the burden of proof for clandestine removal lies with the revenue, not the assessee. They cited relevant Tribunal judgments to support their argument. The Tribunal acknowledged that the earlier order only addressed the jurisdiction issue and did not consider other grounds raised by the appellants. Therefore, following the principle established in the Ludhiana Food Products case, the Tribunal decided to recall the order for re-hearing on all points raised by the appellants, except for the jurisdiction issue which had already been addressed.

The learned Advocate representing the appellants argued that the matter was reserved for a decision only on the jurisdictional point, but the appeal was decided without considering other grounds raised by the appellants. He contended that the burden of proof for clandestine removal rests with the revenue, not the assessee, citing relevant Tribunal judgments. The Tribunal noted that the earlier order focused only on the jurisdiction issue and did not address other grounds raised by the appellants. Following the precedent set in the Ludhiana Food Products case, the Tribunal decided to recall the order for re-hearing on all grounds except jurisdiction, which had already been resolved.

The learned D.R. representing the respondent opposed the appellants' prayer for rectification. He argued that the Tribunal's finding regarding the burden of proof on the appellants for jurisdiction was correct. He maintained that the issue of jurisdiction had been adequately addressed in the previous order and did not require re-hearing. The Tribunal carefully considered arguments from both sides and reviewed the final order. It concluded that while the jurisdiction issue had been settled, other grounds raised by the appellants had not been addressed, as per the Ludhiana Food Products case. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to recall the order for re-hearing on all grounds except jurisdiction, which had already been resolved. The Registry was instructed to list the appeal for a rehearing on the specified date.