2016 (1) TMI 382 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of mistake - Tribunal while passing the order it has escaped to notice the provisions of Section 35C (1)(a) of the Central Excise Act - Held that - Tribunal while passing the order had committed apparent mistake in so far as, it failed to appreciate the scope of Section 37 C (1) (a) of the Act 1994. It is supported by the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Saral Wire Craft Pvt. Ltd. (2015 (7) TMI 894 - SUPREME COURT), where it is observed that the Order served on a kitchen boy and not on concerned person or any authorised person of the appellant, is not valid service. She also relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the case of R.K. Agarwal (2007 (11) TMI 62 - HIGH COURT ALLAHABAD) where the petitioner was ex-director of Company. - Tribunal had not examined scope of Section 37C of the Act in the light of Case laws as cited by the Learned Advocate. But the facts were not disputed by the applicants. In my considered view, the Tribunal cannot rectify such mistakes in the present application. - Rectification denied.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of mistake in Final Order under Section 35C (1)(a) of the Central Excise Act 1944.

Analysis:
The applicants filed applications seeking rectification of a mistake in the Final Order dated 14/11/2014, contending that the Tribunal failed to consider the provisions of Section 35C (1)(a) of the Central Excise Act 1944. The Learned Advocate argued that the Adjudication Order was not effectively served on the applicants as per Section 37C of the Act, citing precedents such as Saral Wire Craft Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Custom, Central Excise & Service Tax and R.K. Agarwal Vs. Cestat, New Delhi. The Advocate highlighted the Tribunal's power to rectify mistakes under Section 35B of the Act, referencing the judgment in Jai Kishan Khatri Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur. The contention was that the service of the order was invalid, warranting rectification.

The Revenue's Authorized Representative opposed the application, asserting that one of the applicants signed the appeal within the stipulated period, indicating knowledge of the Adjudication Orders. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal reviewed the relevant portions of the Final Order and noted that the Order-in-Original was served on the company, and the appeal was filed on time. The Tribunal found that the applicants did not dispute the facts, and while the scope of Section 37C was not fully examined in light of cited case laws, rectification was deemed unwarranted.

The Tribunal ultimately rejected the applications, stating that despite the arguments presented, no merit was found in the applicants' claims. The decision was based on the lack of dispute regarding the facts of service and filing of the appeal, leading to the rejection of the rectification applications.