2009 (6) TMI 775 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Rectification of mistake in a common final order dated 16-12-08 u/s 85 appeals filed by the department and 26 cross objections filed by M/s. Tata Motors.

Summary:

1. Rectification Applications by Vendors of M/s. Tata Motors:
Fifteen rectification applications filed by eleven vendors of M/s. Tata Motors against a common final order dated 16-12-08 were considered by the Tribunal. The applications challenged the addition of 0.085% in the assessable value towards the cost of drawings and designs, as approved in the final order. The final order also addressed the payment of additional duty and penalties, remanding the quantification of duty amount for the normal period of limitation to the original authority. The vendors sought a reconsideration of the final order, which was passed after hearing all concerned parties, including the present applicants and their representative.

2. Scope of Rectification and Review:
The Tribunal noted that rectification applications can only address errors apparent on the face of the record and do not allow for a complete review or re-consideration of the order. The decision to add 0.085% towards drawings and designs charges was a conscious and deliberate one, based on submissions made during investigation by M/s. Tata Motors. The Tribunal emphasized that the drawings and designs were not simple but contained technical details representing specific components to be manufactured. As such, the plea for a review of the order through rectification applications was deemed legally impermissible, as the Tribunal lacks the power to review its own order. It was also highlighted that neither M/s. Tata Motors nor other vendors in a similar position as the present applicants had filed any application for rectification or review of the final order.

3. Dismissal of Rectification Applications:
Considering the above points, the Tribunal dismissed the rectification applications filed by the vendors of M/s. Tata Motors as not maintainable. The decision was pronounced in the open Court, bringing closure to the issue at hand.