2004 (11) TMI 368 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of mistake - Maintainability of application - Review - Quasi judicial authority

Summary

Issues:
1. Review of Tribunal's decision through a ROM application.
2. Interpretation of whether pumping water with a motor amounts to a process of manufacture with the aid of power.
3. Comparison of Ministry of Finance's letter with Supreme Court judgments.
4. Consideration of circular rescinding previous instructions.
5. Analysis of the circular's impact on the clarification regarding the use of power.
6. Application of Supreme Court decision on the use of power in handling raw materials.
7. Examination of the explanation under notification 6/2002 regarding the use of power in manufacturing.

1. Review of Tribunal's Decision:
The ROM application was dismissed as it sought to reargue the case with new material not presented during the initial appeal. The Tribunal emphasized that quasi-judicial authorities lack the power to review their own orders, and aggrieved parties should seek relief through appeals rather than seeking revision of decisions.

2. Interpretation of Manufacturing Process:
The Tribunal ruled that pumping water to an overhead tank with a motor does not constitute a manufacturing process with the aid of power, citing a Ministry of Finance letter. This decision was based on the clarification that the use of power for drawing water into a cooling tank does not amount to manufacturing with the aid of power.

3. Ministry's Letter vs. Supreme Court Judgments:
During the appeal hearing, the Department argued that a Supreme Court judgment regarding the use of power in handling raw materials supported their case. However, the Tribunal upheld the Ministry's clarification, stating that the Supreme Court's decision did not apply to the specific case at hand.

4. Circular Rescinding Previous Instructions:
The Revenue contended in the ROM application that the Tribunal erred by not considering a circular rescinding previous instructions. The Tribunal rejected this argument, noting that the circular was not raised during the initial appeal and did not pertain to the specific issue of power usage in manufacturing.

5. Impact of Circular on Power Usage Clarification:
Even if the circular had been raised, the Tribunal held that it only rescinded guidelines related to classification of goods, not the clarification on power usage during manufacturing. The rationale behind the 1978 circular remained valid and unaffected by the rescinding circular.

6. Application of Supreme Court Decision:
The Tribunal clarified that the Supreme Court decision on power usage in handling raw materials did not apply to the case at hand, as pumping water to an overhead tank was not considered a raw material used in manufacturing rosin. The decision's ratio was deemed inapplicable to the facts of the current case.

7. Explanation under Notification 6/2002:
The Tribunal rejected the argument that an explanation under a different notification clarified the use of power in manufacturing. It emphasized that such explanations were specific to certain goods and did not negate the logic of the 1978 circular regarding power usage in manufacturing. The ROM application was consequently rejected on both merit and legal grounds.