2005 (3) TMI 560 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Recall of final order regarding classification of goods in dispute.

Analysis:
The case involved a request for the recall of a final order by the respondents regarding the classification of goods in dispute, specifically Finned Tube for air cooler and Finned tube heat exchanger. The Tribunal had accepted the appeal of the Revenue (Appellants) in the final order, setting aside the order-in-appeal. The issue raised was whether the Commissioner (Appeals) could be directed to decide the classification issue and duty liability of the respondents again, considering the pending issue before the adjudicating authority. The contention was that the impugned order needed rectification due to this mistake.

Upon review, the Tribunal found the contention raised by the learned Counsel to be misconceived and not acceptable. It was noted that a duty demand had been raised against the appellants for the goods in dispute through a separate show cause notice. While the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, the Commissioner (Appeals) had set it aside without addressing the classification issue. The Tribunal had remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the classification issue and duty liability accordingly. The Tribunal determined that there was no mistake of fact or law in the impugned final order, and the pendency of the classification issue elsewhere did not prevent the Commissioner (Appeals) from addressing it, as the duty demand was based on this issue. It was emphasized that the respondents would have the opportunity to present their defense before the Commissioner (Appeals), and no prejudice had been caused to them by the Tribunal's final order. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application for recall of the final order, stating that it did not suffer from any patent mistake of fact or law.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld its final order and rejected the request for recall, affirming that the Commissioner (Appeals) could proceed with deciding the classification issue and duty liability of the respondents in the ongoing dispute over the goods in question.