2008 (2) TMI 749 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Contention of apparent mistake in Final Order
2. Allegation of suppression of facts by the appellant
3. Challenge regarding penalty reduction and lack of cross-appeal by revenue
4. Confirmation of demand for a larger period and penalty reduction

Analysis:

Issue 1: Contention of apparent mistake in Final Order
The Revenue filed a ROM application contending an apparent mistake in the Final Order, seeking its recall and confirmation of demand for a larger period. The Final Order had previously set aside the differential duty and penalty imposed by the Assistant Commissioner, citing no intention to evade duty due to the absence of suppression of facts.

Issue 2: Allegation of suppression of facts by the appellant
The ROM application highlighted that the appellant had not disclosed certain details in the declaration form, alleging suppression of facts. However, the appellant argued that all necessary details were disclosed, as acknowledged in the impugned order and the Original Order, leading to a penalty reduction from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 5,000.

Issue 3: Challenge regarding penalty reduction and lack of cross-appeal by revenue
Both authorities had unequivocally found no suppression of facts by the appellant, which should have been challenged by the Revenue through a cross-appeal. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue's failure to challenge the penalty reduction or the findings of no suppression of facts earlier precluded them from raising the issue at a later stage, deeming the ROM without merit and rejecting it.

Issue 4: Confirmation of demand for a larger period and penalty reduction
The Tribunal upheld the findings of both authorities regarding the absence of suppression of facts by the appellant, which led to the reduction of the penalty. The Tribunal emphasized that the Revenue's failure to challenge these findings through a cross-appeal precluded them from contesting the issue subsequently. Therefore, the confirmation of demand for a larger period and the penalty reduction were deemed in accordance with the law, and the ROM was rejected accordingly.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the ROM application, maintaining the original decision that there was no suppression of facts by the appellant, which justified setting aside the differential duty and penalty imposed earlier. The failure of the Revenue to challenge the penalty reduction or the findings of no suppression of facts earlier precluded them from raising the issue subsequently, leading to the rejection of the ROM.