2013 (12) TMI 1504 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Appeal against the judgment and order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding modification of miscellaneous orders u/s Rule 41 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 and the power to review orders passed in appeal u/s Section 35C of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Issue 1: Power of Tribunal to Modify Miscellaneous Orders
The appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal and later applied for waiver of pre-deposit. The Tribunal, after evaluating the application, found that the appellant did not provide evidence for financial hardships and the plea of limitation was prima facie untenable. Consequently, the Tribunal determined the appellant's liability at Rs. 60 lakhs, of which Rs. 35.25 lakhs were already paid. A balance of Rs. 24 lakhs was directed to be pre-deposited. Subsequently, the appellant sought modification of the stay order through a Miscellaneous Application. The application was made under Rule 41 of the Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982, allowing the Tribunal to make necessary orders for the ends of justice. The appellant argued that this rule empowered the Tribunal to ensure justice akin to inherent powers. However, the Court held that this rule cannot be used to entirely overturn the original order, as it would amount to a review of the judgment. The Court emphasized that the rule is not meant to challenge a previous judgment that was not legally contested and should only apply in cases of evident mistakes or miscalculations. Therefore, the Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the rule does not require further interpretation.

Issue 2: Review of Orders Passed in Appeal
The Court concluded that the power granted to the Tribunal under Rule 41 cannot be utilized to annul a previous judgment and order that was not challenged in accordance with the law. The Court clarified that this rule is applicable in cases where there are clear errors in the record or miscalculations. It was emphasized that the suggested questions of law did not present substantial legal issues, and the rule itself does not necessitate additional interpretation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without any costs.