1984 (5) TMI 251 - AT - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
1. Alleged errors in the Tribunal's order.
2. Dispute over base paper duty classification.
3. Validity of the review notice issued by the Government.
4. Authority of the Assistant Collector to revise an approved Classification List.
5. Scope of rectification under Section 35(C)(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Alleged Errors in the Tribunal's Order:
The appellant, M/s. Entremonde Polycoaters Private Limited, sought rectification of the Tribunal's order No. 389/83-C dated 20-12-83, claiming errors on the face of the record. The primary contention was that the Tribunal incorrectly stated that a coloured sheet of plastic had been laminated to a sheet of paper, whereas the actual process involved coating the paper with coloured plastic. The Tribunal found that this distinction did not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record, as the Assistant Collector's order clearly stated the process involved coating, not lamination.

2. Dispute Over Base Paper Duty Classification:
The appellant disputed the classification of the base paper under Item 17(1) of the Central Excise Tariff, asserting that it should be classified under Item 17(2). The Tribunal noted that the appellant failed to produce gate passes to substantiate their claim initially and that the Assistant Collector's finding that the base paper was printing and writing paper went unchallenged. The Tribunal held that the appellant's attempt to introduce new evidence at this stage was impermissible.

3. Validity of the Review Notice Issued by the Government:
The appellant argued that the review notice was issued without the Government applying its independent mind, merely echoing the Collector's opinion. The Tribunal found no merit in this argument, stating that such notices are routinely based on references from Collectorates and that the appellant had the opportunity to challenge the notice's content and sufficiency.

4. Authority of the Assistant Collector to Revise an Approved Classification List:
The appellant contended that the Assistant Collector had no authority to revise an approved Classification List. The Tribunal rejected this argument, clarifying that the Assistant Collector could issue demands for wrong assessments and propose the denial of future concessions. The Tribunal emphasized that the power to issue demands for short levy is inherent and not easily neutralized, and the Assistant Collector's actions were lawful and proper.

5. Scope of Rectification Under Section 35(C)(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944:
The Tribunal discussed the scope of rectification under Section 35(C)(2), which allows for the amendment of orders to rectify mistakes apparent from the record. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's request did not meet this criterion, as the alleged mistakes required detailed arguments and were not manifestly obvious. The Tribunal referenced the Orissa High Court's judgment in Commissioner Income-tax v. Jagabandhu Roul, which stated that rectification is limited to obvious mistakes and does not extend to a review of the decision.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal rejected the application for rectification, concluding that no mistake apparent on the face of the record was demonstrated by the appellant. The Tribunal emphasized that the power to review must be statutorily conferred and that the appellant's arguments did not warrant a rectification but rather a review, which is not permissible under the statute. The dissenting opinion by one member reiterated the limited scope of rectification and the necessity for statutory authority to review decisions.

Separate Judgment:
One member, while agreeing with the majority's decision to dismiss the application, dissented on the observations regarding the Assistant Collector's authority to review an approved Classification List, emphasizing the limited scope of rectification and the need for statutory authority for review.

← Previous Next →