2013 (7) TMI 247 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of Mistake from the Final Order of the Tribunal In the definition of Place of Removal , clause (iii) was inserted only in section 4(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 vide Finance Act, 2003 and came into force only on 14.05.2003. Since the period under consideration in the said order was from July, 2000 to December, 2001, the conclusion drawn in the said order is wrong since in respect of clearances from the depot from where the goods are sold, since depot is not a place of removal, the transaction value has to be determined at the factory gate and the same would not include the cost of transportation from the factory to the depot. Held that - in paragraph 8 of the said order, the sentence From the definition of place of removal, in respect of the goods sold from the depot, it is the depot which is the place of removal, and as regards the time of removal, the same shall be deemed to be the time at which the goods were cleared from the factory needs to be deleted and we order accordingly. - Decided in favor of Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of Mistake (ROM) application regarding the definition of "place of removal" under section 4(3)(c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in a Final Order.

Analysis:
1. The ROM application highlighted an error in the Final Order where the definition of "place of removal" under section 4(3)(c) was incorrectly quoted. The mistake was regarding the inclusion of clause (iii) in the definition, which was inserted in the Act only in 2003, while the period under consideration in the order was from July 2000 to December 2001. This error impacted the determination of transaction value for clearances from depots where goods are sold, as depot was not considered a place of removal during the relevant period.

2. The Tribunal carefully reviewed the matter and acknowledged the error in quoting the provisions of section 4(3)(c). Consequently, the Tribunal ordered the deletion of the incorrect clause (iii) from the definition of "place of removal" in the Final Order. The revised definition now includes only a factory or premises of production as well as warehouses or places where goods are deposited without duty payment and then removed.

3. Following the correction in the definition of "place of removal," the Tribunal also directed the deletion of a sentence in the Final Order that incorrectly stated the depot as the place of removal for goods sold from there. The Tribunal clarified that for goods sold from depots, the place of removal should be deemed as the factory gate, not the depot, aligning with the revised definition.

4. The Tribunal concluded that apart from the specific rectifications mentioned, no further modifications or corrections were necessary in the Final Order. The counsel's request to set aside the conclusion drawn in the order was deemed unwarranted by the Tribunal, indicating that the rectifications made were sufficient to address the identified errors.

5. Ultimately, the Rectification of Mistake (ROM) application was disposed of by the Tribunal based on the corrections made to the definition of "place of removal" and the related sentence in the Final Order. The order reflecting the corrections was pronounced in the Court on 9th April 2013, resolving the issues raised in the application comprehensively.