2010 (6) TMI 343 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal - addendum issued by the Commissioner (Appeals) in Order-in-Appeal after review period - last date of review was 29-1-08 and the addendum was issued on 21-2-2008 - Held that - adjudicating authority is not empowered to issue any subsequent change in the order already issued but in this case the order to which addendum is issued has been passed by the lower appellate authority not by the adjudicating authority - addendum issued is upheld - appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected

Summary

Issues: Appeal against addendum issued by Commissioner (Appeals) after orders-in-appeal, validity of addendum issuance, relevance of Board Circular No. 502/68/99-CX, maintainability of addendum, applicability of case law cited by the learned DR.

Analysis:
1. Validity of Addendum Issuance: The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the addendum issued by the Commissioner (Appeals) after orders-in-appeal were passed. The learned DR argued that the addendum was issued after the review period, making it not maintainable. The DR also referred to Board Circular No. 502/68/99-CX, stating that no addendum can be issued at a later date as it would amount to reviewing a decision, which is not permissible under the law. The DR further highlighted the case of Kilitch Co. (Pharma) Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai IV, to support their argument.

2. Relevance of Board Circular and Case Law: The Member (J) analyzed the arguments presented by the DR. Upon reviewing Circular No. 502/68/99-CX, the Member clarified that it pertains to the adjudicating authority and not the lower appellate authority that passed the order in this case. Therefore, the Circular was deemed irrelevant to the current situation. Additionally, the Member found that the case law cited by the DR was not applicable to the circumstances at hand.

3. Decision and Conclusion: After a thorough examination of the arguments and legal provisions, the Member pronounced the judgment. It was held that there was no merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue. The addendum issued by the Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld, and the appeal was rejected. The Member's decision was based on the understanding that the Circular and case law cited were not directly relevant to the case, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai, highlighted the importance of legal provisions, such as Circulars and case laws, in determining the validity of addendum issuance after orders-in-appeal. The decision emphasized the need for precise application of relevant laws and precedents to ensure the appropriate resolution of legal disputes in the context of tax appeals.