2008 (12) TMI 544 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Tribunal can consider points other than those identified by the Committee of Commissioners.
2. Whether the submissions made by the appellant were considered.
3. Whether the documentary evidence on record was considered.
4. Whether irrelevant evidence was considered.

Summary:

1. Tribunal's Consideration of Points Beyond Committee's Identification:
The Tribunal examined the scope of its powers u/s 35E of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It concluded that while the Committee of Commissioners directs the Commissioner to apply for determination of specific points, the Tribunal is required to treat such applications as appeals. This empowers the Tribunal to consider additional evidence and grounds, provided the affected party is given an opportunity to be heard. Rule 10 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules supports this by allowing the Tribunal to consider new grounds not set forth in the memorandum of appeal.

2. Consideration of Appellant's Submissions:
The Tribunal addressed the appellant's contention that their submissions were not considered. It clarified that the objective is to classify the product correctly, and all evidence, including statements, laboratory test reports, and cross-examinations, were considered. The Tribunal emphasized that it is empowered to consider new evidence and that the remand order ensures the appellant has the opportunity to counter any new evidence.

3. Consideration of Documentary Evidence:
The Tribunal refuted the appellant's claim that documentary evidence was not considered. It detailed that the evidence, including chemical examiners' reports and cross-examinations, was part of the record and was duly considered. The Tribunal's role includes interpreting whether the Commissioner correctly considered these reports.

4. Consideration of Irrelevant Evidence:
The Tribunal addressed the appellant's claim that irrelevant facts were considered. It clarified that all issues discussed, such as the evidence of chemical examiners and the application of heat, were relevant to the classification of the product. The Tribunal's objective is to arrive at the correct classification based on available records and evidence.

Extended Period u/s 11A:
The Tribunal acknowledged an error in not considering the applicability of the extended period u/s 11A. It noted that the Commissioner had found sufficient documentation to show that the extended period was not invocable. However, since the main issue was remanded, the Tribunal left the issue open for the Commissioner to reconsider with an open mind.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found no apparent errors on record to be rectified and rejected the Rectification of Mistake application filed by the appellants. The decision was pronounced in the Court on 1-12-2008.