2003 (6) TMI 430 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of mistake application by the Commissioner to correct the figure mentioned in the order. Application filed by the assessee seeking to recall the order. Interpretation of provisions of Sections 11A, 11B, 11AC of the Central Excise Act. Jurisdiction and competence of the Superintendent signing the show cause notice. Limitation point raised by the Counsel.

Rectification of Mistake Application by Commissioner:
The Commissioner filed an application seeking to rectify the figure mentioned in the order, changing it from Rs. 7.77 lakhs to Rs. 13,76,598. The Tribunal found this to be a mistake apparent on the face of the record and allowed the rectification, as the duty confirmed and demanded needed to be remitted in line with the appeal's partial allowance.

Application by Assessee to Recall Order:
The assessee filed an application to recall the order, mainly focusing on jurisdiction and competence issues regarding the Superintendent signing the show cause notice. Despite references to Board Circulars and arguments made, the Tribunal held that the application did not specifically address the grounds for rectification. The Tribunal clarified that it cannot act as an appellate forum against its own order and dismissed the application for recall.

Interpretation of Provisions of Central Excise Act:
The Tribunal's order discussed the provisions of Sections 11A, 11B, 11AC of the Central Excise Act while providing relief by remitting penalties imposed under these sections. The application sought further remittance of the duty confirmed and demanded by the Order-in-Original, which was allowed in part.

Jurisdiction and Competence Issue:
The Tribunal considered the jurisdiction and competence of the Superintendent signing the show cause notice, along with references to Board Circulars and arguments made by the Counsel. Despite these considerations, the Tribunal emphasized the need for specific references in the grounds of appeal for rectification applications to be successful.

Limitation Point Raised:
The Counsel raised a limitation point during the argument, which was not specifically addressed in the grounds of appeal. The Tribunal noted that without specific references in the Memorandum of Grounds, applications for rectification based on such points cannot be accepted. The Tribunal dismissed the application due to the lack of specific grounds addressing the limitation point.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the rectification application filed by the Commissioner, while dismissing the application filed by the assessee. The judgment emphasized the importance of specific references and grounds in rectification applications and clarified the Tribunal's limitations in acting as an appellate forum against its own orders.