2010 (7) TMI 292 - SC - Central Excise

Non-compliance of the requirement under Rule 194 read with Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 - also with the requirement of statutory form on the RG 16 Register which was specifically raised before the Collector of Central Excise - application for rectification of mistake has been filed under Section 35-C (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - application could be considered only if there is a mistake apparent on the face of record Held that - An error apparent on the face of record means an error which strikes on mere looking and does not need a long drawn out process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivably two opinions. Such error should not require any extraneous matter to show its incorrectness. To put it differently, it should be so manifest and clear that no court would permit it to remain on record - only mistake alleged to have been committed by the Tribunal was its pronouncement that the contents of file never shown to the Respondent - of non-compliance of the provisions of Rule 194 read with statutory form having not been raised in the application for rectification of mistake, the same cannot be raised in the present appeal - present appeal has no merit - accordingly dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved: Appeal against CEGAT's rejection of rectification application, non-compliance of Rule 194 and statutory form, maintainability of appeal based on duty rate or value of goods, scope of rectification of mistake application.

Analysis:

1. Rectification Application Rejection: The appeal was filed against the rejection of the rectification application by CEGAT. The appellant argued that the issue of non-compliance with Rule 194 and the statutory form was not decided at any stage, and thus, should be considered in the appeal. The respondent contended that this issue was not raised in the rectification application and, therefore, cannot be raised at this stage. The court noted that the issue was not raised or decided by the authorities or the Tribunal, making it inappropriate to consider it in the present appeal.

2. Maintainability of Appeal: The respondent argued that the appeal was not maintainable as it did not involve the determination of excise duty rate or the value of goods. However, the court found that the issue of non-compliance with Rule 194 and the statutory form could potentially involve questions related to the value of goods, thus rejecting the maintainability objection raised by the respondent.

3. Scope of Rectification Application: The court examined the scope of the rectification of mistake application filed under Section 35-C (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It emphasized that such an application can only be considered if there is a mistake apparent on the face of the record. Referring to previous judgments, the court highlighted that the error should be clear and manifest, not requiring a lengthy reasoning process. In this case, the court found that the issue of non-compliance was not part of the rectification application and, therefore, could not be raised in the present appeal.

4. Final Decision: After considering the arguments and analyzing the facts, the court concluded that the present appeal lacked merit. The court dismissed the appeal based on the grounds that the issue of non-compliance was not raised in the rectification application and, therefore, could not be considered in the appeal.