2015 (6) TMI 114 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of mistake - Notification No. 90/91-Cus dated 25/07/1991 - Invocation of extended period of limitation - Held that - Notification referred to in the Tribunal order at para 15.2 of the Tribunal order is Notification No. 205/1988-CE dated 25/05/88 which granted exemption to wind mills and any specially designed devices which run on wind mills, at Serial No. 12 of the table to the notification. This notification was applicable to Central Excise. The notification referred by the Counsel is a Customs notification. - no error apparent on record - audit report only refers to parts of iron and steel and does not mention anchor rings. The assessee s profile now enclosed as exhibit with the ROM was not presented earlier. It is handwritten and does not bear the stamp/signature of the appellant as in the case of Exhibit C . Here again we find no error in recording the order. - Rectification denied.

Summary

Issues:
1. Error in invoking extended period under Section 11A (4) and imposition of penalty under Section 11AC (1).
2. Issue of limitation based on audit reports.
3. Discrepancy in Notification references.
4. Consideration of all material facts and judgments in passing the order.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Error in invoking extended period and penalty imposition
The appellants contended that the grounds for invoking the extended period under Section 11A (4) and penalty under Section 11AC (1) are the same, i.e., fraud, collusion, or suppression of facts. They cited relevant case laws to support their argument. The appellant also referred to a case where the Tribunal rectified a mistake after realizing an error in not considering material on record. However, the Tribunal found no error apparent on record in this case and dismissed the appeal.

Issue 2: Limitation based on audit reports
The appellant submitted an audit report covering the period from October 2005 to May 2009, showing exemption claims under Notification No. 06/2006-CE for iron and steel articles. They also mentioned the clearance of anchor rings under the same notification. The appellant argued that similar relief was granted to manufacturers across the country. However, the Tribunal noted discrepancies in the audit report and the absence of proper documentation, ultimately dismissing the appeal.

Issue 3: Discrepancy in Notification references
A discrepancy arose regarding the Notification references mentioned in the Tribunal order and by the appellant's counsel. The Tribunal clarified that the Notification granting exemption to wind mills and devices running on wind mills was different from the one cited by the appellant. The Tribunal differentiated between a Central Excise Notification and a Customs Notification, concluding that there was no error apparent on record in this regard.

Issue 4: Consideration of all material facts and judgments
The Tribunal emphasized that the order was passed after considering all material facts and relevant judgments. They highlighted the importance of a thorough review of evidence and legal precedents. Citing a Supreme Court case, the Tribunal asserted that there was no patent mistake in the present case. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the validity of the original order.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment addressed various issues raised by the appellants, including errors in invoking the extended period, limitation based on audit reports, Notification references, and the consideration of material facts and judgments. The Tribunal meticulously analyzed the arguments presented, ultimately upholding the original order and dismissing the appeal.