2003 (5) TMI 430 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Application for rectification of mistake in Tribunal's Final Order regarding refund of duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of final products exported outside India.

Analysis:
The issue in this case revolves around the rectification of a mistake in the Tribunal's Final Order concerning the refund of duty paid on inputs utilized in the production of final products exported outside India. The Appellant, represented by Shri P.K. Mittal, argued that the Tribunal had remanded the matter to ascertain whether the export of goods through a Merchant-Exporter was made under the DEEC Scheme. The Appellant contended that the duty paid inputs were procured locally and used in the manufacturing process of goods exported, fulfilling the necessary requirements for claiming a refund. On the other hand, the Respondent, represented by Shri U. Raja Ram, opposed the rectification, stating that the Tribunal had previously directed the Adjudicating Authority to reexamine the matter based on specific observations, emphasizing the need to verify if the Merchant-Exporter had availed of certain benefits. The Respondent argued that no mistake existed in the Tribunal's Final Order, citing a Supreme Court decision to support this position.

Upon considering the arguments presented by both parties, the Tribunal concluded that the exports were conducted by M/s. U.K. Paint Industries and not by the Appellants. The Tribunal highlighted that the aspect of export under the DEEC Scheme had been previously addressed in a remand order, which was not challenged by the Appellants through an appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal deemed it untimely for the Appellants to claim a mistake in the Final Order based on the remand order's considerations. Additionally, the Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court decision in ASCU Ltd., emphasizing that a mistake apparent on the face of the record must be clear and indisputable, not a matter of debate or interpretation. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the Appellant's application for rectification, asserting that no error existed in the Tribunal's Order, as per legal standards set forth by the Supreme Court.

In summary, the Tribunal dismissed the application for rectification, emphasizing that the alleged mistake was not evident on the face of the record and did not meet the criteria for rectification as established by legal precedents. The judgment underscores the importance of clarity and certainty in identifying mistakes in judicial orders, highlighting the need for errors to be unequivocal and readily discernible to warrant rectification.