2005 (11) TMI 275 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Apparent mistakes in final orders passed by the Bench in the captioned appeals.
2. Reduction of penalty by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) and subsequent appeals by the assessee and the Revenue.
3. Contradictory views in final orders passed by the Bench in the assessee's appeal and the Revenue's appeal.
4. Disposal of each appeal without knowledge of the other, leading to mistakes and contradictions.

Analysis:
1. The applications filed by the department highlighted apparent mistakes in the final orders passed by the Bench in the appeals. Despite the absence of representation for the respondents, the Bench considered the department's case due to the repeated adjournment requests made by the party's Advocate. Consequently, the applications were deemed necessary for disposal at that stage.

2. Final Order No. 975/2004 and Final Order No. 191/2005 were passed by the Bench in the Party's Appeal No. E/953/2003 and the Revenue's Appeal No. E/942/2003, respectively. The penalty imposed on the assessee under Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for delay in payment of duty instalments was reduced by the first appellate authority. The assessee challenged this penalty reduction, while the Revenue sought restoration of the original penalty amount. The Bench, unaware of the Revenue's appeal against the penalty reduction, made a factual mistake in the final order of the assessee's appeal.

3. The final order in the Revenue's appeal upheld the lesser penalty imposed by the lower appellate authority, stating that it was permissible to impose a penalty lower than the prescribed amount. This view contradicted the stance taken in the assessee's appeal, where the Bench held that the prescribed penalty was the only one applicable. The contradictory views arose due to the separate disposal of each appeal without knowledge of the other, leading to inconsistencies in the final orders.

4. To rectify the mistakes and contradictions, both final orders were recalled, and the appeals were directed to be posted together for a comprehensive final hearing. This decision aimed to address the errors and ensure a coherent and consistent resolution of both appeals. The Recall of Mistakes applications were allowed to this extent, emphasizing the need for a unified approach in handling related appeals to avoid discrepancies and ensure procedural fairness.