2006 (5) TMI 43 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of mistake - Appellant contended that they were liable for benefit of exemption as per the board circular - He not entitle for benefit as per notification - After considering the prior decision tribunal rejected the application

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification 2/95 regarding payment of duty on goods cleared to Domestic Tariff Area.
2. Conflict between Notification 2/95 and Board's Circular No. 42/97.
3. Applicability of Circular issued by the Board.
4. Consideration of Central Value Duty (CVD) under Notification 2/95.
5. Legal position regarding the overriding effect of Notification over Circular.
6. Validity of RoM application in rectifying the alleged error.

Analysis:

1. The judgment dealt with the interpretation of Notification 2/95 concerning the payment of duty on goods cleared to the Domestic Tariff Area. The appellants cleared goods under para 9.9(f) of the EXIM Policy, leading to a conclusion that the benefit of the Notification did not apply to them. The Tribunal held that the Notification prevailed over the Board's Circular, resulting in the dismissal of the appeals.

2. A conflict arose between Notification 2/95 and Board's Circular No. 42/97. The Tribunal ruled that the Notification would take precedence over the Circular. The appellants argued that the Tribunal erred by not recognizing the binding nature of the Circular, citing a Supreme Court decision in a similar case.

3. The applicability of the Circular issued by the Board was contested by the appellants, emphasizing its binding nature. However, the Tribunal maintained that the Notification held legal superiority over the Circular, as it had the force of law.

4. The consideration of Central Value Duty (CVD) under Notification 2/95 during the disputed period was raised by the appellants. They contended that no CVD was leviable, which they believed was overlooked by the Tribunal in its decision.

5. The judgment discussed the legal position regarding the overriding effect of the Notification over the Circular. It was emphasized that the Notification had the force of law and would prevail over conflicting Circulars. The Tribunal's view was that the Notification could not be disregarded based on the Board's Circular.

6. The validity of the Review of Order in Modification (RoM) application was questioned. The Tribunal rejected the RoM applications, stating that they did not find any merit in them. It was clarified that filing a RoM petition could not cure defects in the final order, and rectification of mistakes was only applicable in specific circumstances as per legal precedents cited.