2007 (11) TMI 547 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved: Application for rectification of mistake in the order of the Tribunal regarding the treatment of goods received from 100% EOU as imported goods and the demand of duty equivalent to the aggregate of customs duty, applicability of proviso to Section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, reliance on the statement of the proprietor of M/s Tirupati Textiles, and the scope of the rectification of mistake (ROM) application.

Analysis:

1. Treatment of Goods from 100% EOU as Imported Goods:
The applicant contended that the Tribunal erred in treating goods received from 100% EOU as imported goods and demanding duty equivalent to the aggregate of customs duty. However, the Tribunal clarified that duty payable by 100% EOUs on goods manufactured by them is excise duty, not customs duty. The Tribunal emphasized that the duty demanded with reference to the customs tariff is essentially excise duty under Section 11A, and in this case, the goods were not manufactured by the appellant, a 100% EOU. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the contention that the goods should be treated as imported goods.

2. Applicability of Proviso to Section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944:
The applicant raised concerns about the applicability of the proviso to Section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, instead of the main section. However, the Tribunal found no merit in this argument as the duty demanded was in line with the provisions of the Act. The Tribunal clarified that the duty was correctly demanded under the relevant sections of the Central Excise Act, and there was no mistake in this regard.

3. Reliance on the Statement of the Proprietor of M/s Tirupati Textiles:
The applicant contested the Tribunal's decision to uphold the duty demand based on the statement of the proprietor of M/s Tirupati Textiles. Despite this challenge, the Tribunal found no error in relying on the statement during the proceedings. The Tribunal maintained that the duty demand was justified, and the reliance on the statement was appropriate in the context of the case.

4. Scope of Rectification of Mistake (ROM) Application:
The applicant sought rectification of the Tribunal's order based on various grounds, including the treatment of goods, applicability of provisions, and reliance on evidence. However, the Tribunal noted that the issues raised were already addressed during the proceedings, and there was no mistake apparent on record warranting rectification. The Tribunal emphasized that the ROM application could not be used to review the order or challenge the merits of the case, as the order was appealable.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the ROM application, stating that it lacked merit and did not present any valid grounds for rectification. The judgment reaffirmed the original decision regarding the treatment of goods from 100% EOU, the application of relevant provisions, and the reliance on evidence, highlighting the importance of adhering to the legal framework and procedural requirements in such matters.