2014 (4) TMI 911 - HC - Central Excise

Denial of rebate claim - Application of corrigendum notification - Notification No. 93/2004-Cus dated 10.09.2004 - Held that - it is not the case of application of an exemption notification itself but the effect of corrigendum notification issued in respect of an earlier exemption notification admitting apparent omission therein necessitating the issuance of correction/ corrigendum notification. Therefore, principle applied herein would be different - corrigendum notification dated 17.05.2005 itself says that it is a corrigendum in notification dated 10.09.2004 and, therefore, there is no reason to treat this corrigendum effective from the date the notification dated 10.09.2004 was issued wherein this corrigendum (correction) has been made. The respondents-authorities having taken a contrary view, therefore, have committed a manifest error of law - The revisional order dated 24.08.2009 confirming Commissioner (Appeals) order as also the Commissioner (Appeals) order dated 22.11.2006, are hereby quashed and the orders granting rebate passed by Assistant Commissioner are hereby restored and confirmed - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of corrigendum notification dated 17.05.2005 in relation to the export of goods during December 2004 to March 2005.
2. Retroactive effect of corrigendum notification on the earlier notification dated 10.09.2004.
3. Legal implications of a corrigendum in relation to correction in a notification.

Analysis:
1. The judgment dealt with the interpretation of a corrigendum notification dated 17.05.2005 concerning the export of goods by a company engaged in manufacturing and exporting Polyester film under Chapter 39 of Central Excise Tariff. The dispute arose regarding the entitlement of the petitioner for rebate under custom Notification No. 93/2004-Cus dated 10.09.2004 and its corrigendum Notification No. 605/50/2005-DBK dated 17.05.2005. The respondents contended that the corrigendum was not applicable retrospectively to transactions from December 2004 to March 2005, leading to a legal challenge by the petitioner.

2. The central issue revolved around the retroactive effect of the corrigendum notification on the earlier notification dated 10.09.2004. The petitioner's counsel argued that the corrigendum was a correction of an apparent mistake in the initial notification and should have retroactive application to rectify the error. The court acknowledged the petitioner's argument, emphasizing that a corrigendum is meant to rectify mistakes in the original document and should relate back to the date of the initial authoring to serve its purpose effectively.

3. The judgment delved into the legal implications of a corrigendum, distinguishing it from an amendment or modification in a notification. The court referred to various definitions of "corrigendum" from legal dictionaries and highlighted precedents where courts recognized the retroactive nature of corrigendum notifications to correct errors in printed works. Citing relevant case laws and principles, the court concluded that the corrigendum notification dated 17.05.2005 was a correction to the earlier notification and should have a retroactive effect, rejecting the respondents' view that it should only apply prospectively.

4. Ultimately, the court allowed the writ petition, quashed the revisional and appellate orders, and restored the orders granting rebate to the petitioner by the Assistant Commissioner. The judgment emphasized the importance of interpreting corrigendum notifications in line with their corrective purpose and ensuring their retroactive application to rectify errors in earlier notifications effectively.