2014 (10) TMI 14 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of mistake - Undervaluation - MRP based valuation u/s 4A - change in MRP subsequent to removal of goods - non declaration of the actual MRP on ceramic glazed tiles and vitrified tiles - two periods i.e. prior to 01.03.2008 and post 01.03.2008. - demand of differential duty and levy of penalty - Held that - applications which are filed by the Revenue is on the observations/findings recorded by the Bench and the said findings and observations are not errors apparent on the face of the record and if the Revenue is aggrieved by such findings and observations, the legal remedies available to them should be explored, if advised to do so. We find that by these applications, Revenue is trying to reargue the entire cases which cannot be permitted as has been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of RDC Concrete (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2011 (8) TMI 25 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) wherein their Lordships have specifically settled the law which is rectification of mistake cannot be done by re-appreciation of evidence. Since the entire case in final order dated 12-12-2013 was decided on the basis of the legal provisions existing during the material period, and the judicial pronouncement of the Co-ordinate Bench on the same issue was followed and it was held that prior to 1-3-2008, RSP could not be re-determined - though the demand for the period post 1-3-2008 has been set aside, but the matter is remanded back to the lower authorities to appreciate the evidence on record and come to a conclusion, which itself would indicate that we had not recorded any findings on the factual matrix in the case in hand - Rectification denied.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Rectification of errors in the final order dated 12-12-2013 regarding redetermination of RSP post-amendment to Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Detailed Analysis:
1. Rectification of Errors by Revenue:
The Special Counsel for the Revenue argued that there were mistakes apparent in the final order dated 12-12-2013, specifically regarding the redetermination of "RSP" and the drawing of adverse inferences. He pointed out discrepancies in the factual matrix and cited relevant case laws to support the need for rectification.

2. Respondent's Argument:
The respondent's counsel contended that the Revenue's applications were attempting to reargue the entire matter, which was impermissible. Citing the decision in the RDC Concrete case, it was argued that rectification of mistakes cannot be done through re-appreciation of evidence. The respondent emphasized that the observations made by the Bench were based on specific proceedings before the Tribunal.

3. Bench's Evaluation:
After considering both parties' submissions and reviewing the applications for rectification of mistakes, the Bench found that the Revenue's applications lacked merit for dismissal on multiple grounds. Firstly, the Bench noted that the Revenue was trying to reargue the cases, which was not permissible as per legal precedents. Secondly, the Bench clarified that the observations in the final order regarding contrary views by the Tribunal were in reference to specific cases related to redetermination of RSP post-amendment to Section 4A. The Bench highlighted that the legal position was correctly stated based on previous judgments and the facts of the cases at hand.

4. Legal Provisions and Judicial Pronouncements:
The Bench emphasized that the final order was based on the legal provisions applicable during the relevant period and followed the judicial pronouncements of a Co-ordinate Bench. It was held that prior to a certain date, RSP could not be redetermined, and the factual matrix was analyzed based on the evidence presented.

5. Dismissal of Applications:
Ultimately, the Bench concluded that the Revenue's applications for rectification of mistakes were devoid of merit and dismissed them. The matter was clarified to be decided based on existing legal provisions and factual evidence, with any aggrieved party advised to seek remedies in a higher judicial forum.

In conclusion, the Bench upheld the original final order dated 12-12-2013 and dismissed the Revenue's applications for rectification of mistakes, emphasizing the importance of legal provisions, judicial precedents, and proper avenues for addressing grievances.