2014 (4) TMI 1064 - AT - Central Excise

Review of order - Valuation of Niacin - Captive consumption - job work - manufacture niacin and such niacin captively consumed in the manufacture of niacin feed premix - Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of price of Excisable Goods) Rules 2000 Entitlement for Exemption under Notification No.10/96 Eligibility for Cenvat credit Held that - The application is really a review application in the guise of an application for rectification of mistakes. Various contentions raised in the application calls for extensive examination of material facts and evidence as well as contentions of the parties made at the time of hearing appeal and nothing a mistake apparent from record by a glance. Tribunal does not have power of review under law since it becomes functus officio soon after passing an order. In the absence of any power to review like a Civil Court, it is not permitted in law to disturb the result of the appeal on merit by a review. Appellant prays to review entire order and decide the appeal again on merit which is not permitted by law. In order to amend an order under the powers of rectification of mistake conferred on the Tribunal by law the mistake should be apparent from record and appreciable without a detailed exercise for discovery thereof. Contentions in the Misc. Application shows that detailed exercise is called for by the Appellant to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case. Such exercise is permissible only if power of review is conferred on the Tribunal. But such a power is absent in the scheme of the law of Excise. Court specifically held that recalling the entire order would mean passing of a fresh order. That does not appear to be the legislative intent. In view of the provisions and judicial pronouncement indicated hereinabove, Hon ble Court held that the power to rectify a mistake under Section 254(2) cannot be used for recalling the entire order. No power of review has been given to the Tribunal under the Income-tax Act. Thus, what it cannot do directly cannot be allowed to be done indirectly. If the assessee was aggrieved, it was open for him to approach the appropriate forum without asking the Tribunal review the entire judgment delivered by it earlier in present application of the applicant calling for review of the entire order to replace the earlier decision is a review exercise called for. Therefore that is liable to be dismissed. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the application filed by the appellant constitutes a valid request for rectification of mistakes apparent from the record.
2. Whether the Tribunal has the power to review its own final order.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the application filed by the appellant constitutes a valid request for rectification of mistakes apparent from the record:

The appellant contended that certain mistakes crept into the final order due to delays in the disposal of the appeal. Specifically, the appellant argued that the product in question was an animal feed supplement, but the final order misinterpreted it. Additionally, the appellant claimed that the interpretation of whether animal feed includes animal feed supplements was not addressed. The appellant sought to rectify these alleged mistakes through a Miscellaneous Application.

However, the Tribunal found that the application was essentially a review application disguised as a request for rectification of mistakes. The Tribunal emphasized that rectifiable mistakes must be apparent from the record and should not require extensive examination of material facts or contentions. The Tribunal concluded that the contentions raised by the appellant called for a detailed examination, which is beyond the scope of rectification and more akin to a review.

2. Whether the Tribunal has the power to review its own final order:

The Tribunal reiterated that it does not possess the power of review under the law, as it becomes functus officio (having fulfilled its function) after passing an order. The Tribunal cited several precedents, including Major Chandra Bhan Singh and Harbhajan Singh v. Karam Singh, to support the principle that review is a creature of statute and cannot be entertained in the absence of a statutory provision.

The Tribunal further referenced the case of Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimal Nath Narithania, which reinforced that a review application is not maintainable unless expressly permitted by statute. The Tribunal also noted that an error apparent on the face of the record must be obvious and not require a long process of reasoning or consideration of extraneous matters.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's application sought to review the entire order and decide the appeal again on merit, which is not permitted by law. The Tribunal emphasized that rectification of mistakes should be based on errors that are patent and apparent from the record without requiring elaborate arguments or investigations.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's application for rectification of mistakes, stating that it was essentially a review application, which is not permissible under the law. The Tribunal underscored that it does not have the power to review its own final order and that rectifiable mistakes must be apparent from the record and not require extensive examination or reasoning. The application was deemed misconceived and devoid of merit, leading to its dismissal.