2007 (11) TMI 490 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Claim for interest on Cenvat credit amount raised before lower appellate authority; Error in final order regarding the claim for interest; Whether interest on Cenvat credit is a consequential relief.

Analysis:
1. The appellants filed an application claiming a mistake apparent from the record in the final order of the Tribunal. The appeal was related to the transfer of unutilized credit during the shifting of the plant and machinery. The appellants argued that they had indeed claimed interest on the Cenvat credit amount before the lower appellate authority, contrary to the observation in the final order. The Tribunal acknowledged the error in its observation and agreed that the claim for interest was made before the lower appellate authority. However, the appellants did not specifically claim interest before the Tribunal, and it was not raised in the memorandum of appeal against the non-grant of Cenvat credit with interest. The Tribunal noted that the consultant for the appellants did argue for interest during the final hearing, but the specific ground for interest was not raised in the appeal.

2. The Tribunal rejected the argument that interest on Cenvat credit is a consequential relief that should be discerned from the prayer for consequential relief in the memorandum of appeal. The Tribunal emphasized that no specific ground for interest was raised in the appeal, and the claim for interest was not part of the relief sought in the appeal. The Tribunal clarified that the appeal was specifically for the transfer of unutilized credit, and once that relief was granted, any other relief like interest on Cenvat credit cannot be considered as consequential relief.

3. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the application only to the extent of deleting and modifying certain sentences in the final order to rectify the error regarding the claim for interest. The Tribunal maintained that interest on Cenvat credit was not a relief sought in the appeal and could not be considered a consequential relief to the main relief granted, which was the transfer of unutilized credit. The judgment clarified the distinction between the relief sought in the appeal and additional claims made during the hearing, emphasizing the importance of specific grounds and prayers in the appeal process.