2008 (12) TMI 505 - AT - Central Excise

Issues:
Rectification of alleged mistake in the Tribunal's Final Order regarding excisability and eligibility for Notification No. 202/88-C.E.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The Tribunal's Final Order held that the product (Oxygen lancing pipes) manufactured by the appellant is excisable and not eligible for Notification No. 202/88-C.E. The appellant claimed errors in the order, specifically regarding the evidence of purchase and duty paid nature of steel tubes used. The appellant provided detailed evidence of procurement of steel tubes, including bill wise details, size-wise procurement, and purchase bills, which were part of the record but not noticed by the Tribunal. The appellant argued that the steel tubes were exempted from duty payment under Notification 202/88-C.E. The Tribunal's finding that the appellant failed to produce evidence was challenged based on documentary proof.

2. The Tribunal also noted that the appellant failed to prove satisfying the conditions of Notification 202/88-C.E., specifically regarding the thickness of inputs not exceeding 5 mm and duty paid nature. The appellant presented evidence from purchase orders by reputable companies indicating compliance with the specified dimensions in the notification. Additionally, the Indian Standards specification for Oxygen Lancing Pipes required a thickness of less than 3mm, further supporting the appellant's position. The appellant contended that the interpretation of duty paid nature by the Tribunal was legally unsustainable and did not align with the notification's explanation.

3. The Departmental Representative argued against the rectification, stating that the appellant's request essentially sought a review of the order, which is impermissible. Citing precedents, the DR emphasized that seeking a recall and rehearing of the appeal would amount to the Tribunal reviewing its own decision, which is not allowed. The DR relied on previous tribunal decisions and a High Court judgment to support the contention that such reviews are not permissible.

4. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions, concluded that the grounds for rectification did not reveal any mistake apparent on record. The Tribunal clarified that the appellant's disagreement with the findings did not constitute a clear error warranting rectification. The Tribunal emphasized that the rectification request essentially aimed at recalling the order for a rehearing, which was not permissible. The Tribunal highlighted that its orders are subject to further appellate remedies as per the law.

5. In light of the arguments presented, the Tribunal rejected the application for rectification, stating that the grounds did not meet the criteria for recalling the final order. The Tribunal underscored that the appeal had been decided based on a reasoned order, and if the appellant was dissatisfied, other legal remedies were available. The Tribunal emphasized that the power of rectification should be exercised judiciously and not used as a means to prolong proceedings by an aggrieved party.

6. The Tribunal referenced a previous decision to elucidate the distinction between a mere erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. It emphasized that rectification applications should not be elevated above other statutory remedies like appeal, revision, or review. The Tribunal highlighted that the power of rectification should be exercised cautiously and within defined limits.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found no merit in the rectification application and rejected it, emphasizing that the appeal had been decided based on a reasoned order and that the rectification sought by the appellant did not meet the necessary criteria. The Tribunal reiterated that the power of rectification should not be misused to prolong proceedings and that other legal remedies were available for dissatisfied parties.

← Previous Next →