2014 (12) TMI 197 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of mistake - whether the activity undertaken by the appellant resulted in a new product having a distinct character, name and use and therefore, the activity could be construed as amounting to manufacture - Held that - Difference between the product with which the process was started and the resultant product and how the finished products were known differently from the raw materials, this Tribunal came to the conclusion that a new product having a distinct character, name and use had emerged and, therefore, it was held that the process undertaken by the appellant amounted to manufacture . While coming to this conclusion, the Tribunal also relied upon the apex Court s decisions in the case of Pio Food Packers 1980 (5) TMI 30 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA and Empire Industries Ltd. 1985 (5) TMI 215 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA . The mistake apparent on record must be obvious and a patent mistake and the mistake should not be such that which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning. Re-appreciation of evidence on a debatable point cannot be said to be rectification of mistake apparent on record. If the mistake is sought to be rectified by long drawn process of reasoning or where two opinions are possible, the same cannot be said to be a mistake apparent from the record attracting the provisions of Section 35C of the Central Excise Act, 1994. In the present case, we have given clear and cogent reasons for coming to the conclusion drawn in the impugned order. If the appellant is aggrieved of the same, the remedy lies in filing an appeal as provided in law - Rectification denied.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of mistake application regarding final order on whether the activity amounts to "manufacture."

Analysis:

Issue 1: Consideration of Previous Tribunal Decisions
The appellant argued that the Tribunal failed to consider previous decisions in similar cases, where it was held that certain activities did not amount to "manufacture." The appellant cited cases involving other companies like M/s. E. Merck India Ltd. and S.D. Fine Chemicals Ltd. to support their contention. They also referenced a decision by the apex Court in Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax. The appellant urged the Tribunal to reconsider these decisions while passing a revised order.

Issue 2: Tribunal's Examination of the Activity
The Tribunal, in the impugned order, extensively examined whether the activity undertaken by the appellant constituted "manufacture." The Tribunal considered the processes involved, the changes in the product, and how the finished products were distinct from the raw materials. Citing previous apex Court decisions in the cases of Pio Food Packers and Empire Industries Ltd., the Tribunal concluded that a new product with a distinct character, name, and use had emerged, thereby amounting to "manufacture."

Issue 3: Comparison with Previous Tribunal Decision
The Tribunal distinguished the present case from the decision involving E.Merck Ltd., highlighting that the previous case did not delve into the processes undertaken or determine if they amounted to "manufacture." The Tribunal emphasized that in the current case, a detailed analysis was conducted on the processes, product changes, and marketing aspects. The Tribunal refused to re-appreciate the evidence through the rectification of mistake application, citing precedents like RDC Concrete (India) Pvt. Ltd. and ACSU Ltd., which emphasized that such applications should not involve re-evaluating evidence on debatable points.

Issue 4: Dismissal of Rectification of Mistake Application
Based on the above considerations, the Tribunal found no merit in the rectification of mistake application. The Tribunal held that the reasons for the conclusion in the impugned order were clear and well-founded. It emphasized that if the appellant disagreed with the decision, the appropriate recourse was to file an appeal as per the legal provisions.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the rectification of mistake application, maintaining that the decision in the impugned order was well-supported and did not warrant revision through the rectification process.