2013 (10) TMI 616 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification in Final order - Rectification of error apparent on the face of record Held that - Appellant has not contested the duty liability before the Bench - Tribunal has recorded clearly that the duty which has been reversed by the appellant was voluntary and, as the same was taken inadvertently in excess to whatever was due to them - there is no error apparent on the face of records which needs rectification by the Bench - By raising this new point in the applications of rectification of mistakes appellant is trying to re-argue the case, which is not permissible at this stage - If the appellant is aggrieved by any portion of the order, there are legal remedies available which can be explored Decided against Assessee.

Summary

Issues: Rectification of error apparent on the face of record in the final order regarding duty liability beyond the period of limitation.

In the judgment delivered by Mr. M.V. Ravindaran, the appellant filed applications seeking rectification of an error apparent on the face of the record in the final order dated 09.04.2013 by the Tribunal. The appellant contended that although the final order was in their favor regarding interest liability and penalty, no relief was granted on the demand of cenvat credit, which was beyond the period of limitation. The appellant relied on precedents to support their argument for rectification. On the other hand, the departmental representative argued that the final order was correct, and there was no error on record. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had not contested the duty liability before the Bench and that the duty reversed by the appellant was voluntary and taken inadvertently in excess. The Tribunal found no error apparent on the face of the records requiring rectification and stated that the appellant was attempting to reargue the case through the rectification applications, which was impermissible at that stage. The Tribunal emphasized that legal remedies were available if the appellant was aggrieved by any portion of the order. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the applications for rectification of mistake, concluding that no error was apparent in the order dated 09.04.2013.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issue of rectification of an error apparent on the face of the record concerning duty liability beyond the period of limitation. The Tribunal found that the appellant's attempt to seek rectification was an endeavor to reargue the case rather than rectify a genuine error. The Tribunal emphasized the availability of legal remedies for addressing grievances with the order and dismissed the rectification applications, stating that no error was evident in the final order dated 09.04.2013.