2014 (3) TMI 343 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of mistake - Disallowance of CENVAT Credit - CENVAT credit on iron and steel products used in fabricating and erecting one crusher plant, one diesel generating set and one conveyor system in their factory premises - Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order - Revenue submits that order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), is erroneous inasmuch as fabricating and erecting of crusher plant and diesel generating set in their factory premises was held to be supporting structure, which was not considered by the Tribunal - Held that - in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 35C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Appellate Tribunal is empowered to rectifying the mistake apparent from the records, amend any order passed by it under sub-section (1) of the said Section and shall make such amendments if the mistake is brought to its notice by the parties to the appeal. Reappreciation of evidence on a debatable point cannot be said to be rectification of mistake apparent on record. Mistake should not be established by a long drawn process of reasoning and mistake apparent on record must be obvious and patent mistake. It is also observed that incorrect application of law can also not be corrected - it would be a total reappreciation of the evidence and would be established a long drawn processes of reasoning, which is not permissible in the application for rectification of mistake. At any event, non-speaking order as contended by the learned authorised representative cannot be rectified within the scope of Section 35(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and it would be rehearing of the appeal - Rectification denied.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of mistake in the Final Order passed by the Tribunal regarding disallowed CENVAT credit on certain items used in manufacturing capital goods.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute over the disallowance of CENVAT credit on iron and steel products used in fabricating and erecting specific machinery in a factory premises. The original authority disallowed the credit, leading to a penalty. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this decision, allowing the appeal filed by the respondent based on the eligibility to avail credit on items used in the manufacture of capital goods for the final product. This led the Revenue to file an appeal before the Tribunal.

Upon hearing both sides and reviewing the records, the Tribunal noted the conformity of the lower appellate authority's decision with a previous Tribunal case. The Revenue subsequently filed an application for rectification of mistake (ROM) in the Final Order, claiming that certain issues were not considered, such as ineligible credit on structural support and inadmissible documents. The authorized representative argued that the Tribunal did not address these issues and failed to consider relevant case laws and decisions.

In response, the respondent's counsel highlighted that the Tribunal's decision aligned with previous case law, emphasizing the applicability of specific judgments to the present case. The counsel also referenced a Supreme Court decision allowing credit on similar machinery erection. The Tribunal deliberated on the application for rectification, citing legal provisions that allow rectification of mistakes apparent from the records. It emphasized that rectification should not involve reappreciation of evidence or correction of incorrect legal applications. The Tribunal rejected the ROM application, stating that the case did not present a clear and patent mistake on record, and rectifying a non-speaking order would amount to rehearing the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's ROM application, maintaining the original decision in favor of the respondent regarding the disallowed CENVAT credit, based on the principles of rectification of mistakes under the Central Excise Act, 1944, and relevant legal precedents.