2010 (8) TMI 907 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Application claiming apparent mistakes in Final Order
2. Incorrect application of Supreme Court's judgment
3. Valuation dispute not addressed

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed applications citing apparent mistakes in the Final Order, pointing out errors in the application of the Supreme Court's judgment and the lack of decision on the valuation dispute.

2. The appellant argued that the Bench did not consider the Apex Court's decision regarding destruction of goods during quality control tests, similar to a case involving cigarettes. The appellant claimed that the samples of finished goods were destroyed during testing in the laboratory and removed as waste and scrap, supported by relevant invoices. However, upon review, the Tribunal found no evidence connecting the materials cleared to any laboratory tests, concluding that the goods were subject to excise duty based on the Apex Court's decision.

3. Regarding the valuation dispute, the appellant highlighted discrepancies in the method of valuation used by the department in the show cause notices. While the appellant advocated for transaction value, the authorities relied on different valuation methods without addressing the anomaly. The Tribunal acknowledged the oversight in not addressing the valuation dispute in the final order and remanded the case to the original authority for re-quantification based on correct valuation, emphasizing the need for consistency in valuation methods for identical goods.

4. The Tribunal revised the final order, substituting paragraphs to address the valuation issue raised by the appellant and directing the original authority to re-quantify the duty amount based on correct valuation, ensuring the appellant's right to be heard. The decision upheld the dutiability of the goods and the extended period of limitation, with the appellant liable for interest and penalty as per the Central Excise Act.

5. Ultimately, the applications were allowed to the extent of rectifying the errors in the final order, emphasizing the importance of correct valuation and procedural fairness in excise duty matters.