2014 (6) TMI 1035 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of mistake - mistake on the face of record or not - classification of goods - Beneficiale Liquid - DSN Capsules - the appellant filed two separate appeals for the two periods - Revenue states that as the impugned order is common, the said final order will have a binding effect on the appeal, which is pending. Further, he also states that the appellant is seeking a review of the appeal already disposed of, which is not desirable - HELD THAT - Under the facts and circumstances, firstly both the appeals should have been disposed of together. Secondly, judgement cited by the learned Counsel for the appellant have not been considered as no reason have been cited in the final order for deferring with the views expressed in those judgements. Further, the appellant has suffered prejudice, as appeals were not disposed of together. Both the appeals tagged together for final hearing - ROM application allowed. Put up for hearing on 15.07.2019.

Issues involved:
Rectification of mistake in the final order, Dispute regarding classification of products, Delay in passing orders, Consideration of judgments cited, Prejudice due to non-disposal of appeals together, Binding effect of final order, Review of disposed appeal, Judgment on rectifiable mistakes, Consideration of relevant case laws, Recalling and tagging of appeals for final hearing.

Analysis:

1. Rectification of mistake in the final order:
The appellant filed a Rectification of Mistake (RoM) application seeking rectification in the Final Order passed in Excise Appeal No. 51976 of 2018-DB. The appellant argued that the final order did not discuss the judgments cited by them, leading to prejudice as the appeals were not disposed of together. The Tribunal considered this argument and recalled the final order, allowing the RoM application.

2. Dispute regarding classification of products:
The Department issued show cause notices disputing the classification of 'Beneficiale Liquid' and 'DSN Capsules'. The notices raised demands, and the matter was adjudicated through a common order-in-original. The appellant filed separate appeals for the two periods, and the issue of classification was the primary concern in these appeals.

3. Delay in passing orders:
Due to a delay in passing the order on one of the appeals, the Bench decided to rehear the matter. This delay led to the appellant's argument that both appeals should have been disposed of together, as the issue was similar in nature. The delay resulted in the final order being passed on one appeal before the other, causing prejudice to the appellant.

4. Consideration of judgments cited:
The appellant pointed out that the judgments cited by them were not considered in the final order. They argued that the Tribunal did not provide reasons for disagreeing with the case laws cited, which led to a lack of proper consideration of relevant legal precedents. This non-consideration of cited judgments was a crucial point in the RoM application.

5. Prejudice due to non-disposal of appeals together:
The appellant contended that they suffered prejudice as the appeals were not disposed of together, despite the similarity in the issues raised. This lack of simultaneous disposal affected the appellant's ability to present their case effectively and led to the RoM application seeking a recall of the final order.

6. Binding effect of final order and review of disposed appeal:
The Authorized Representative for the Revenue argued that the final order would have a binding effect on the pending appeal and opposed the RoM application for rectification. They stated that seeking a review of the already disposed appeal was not desirable, emphasizing the importance of finality in legal decisions.

7. Judgment on rectifiable mistakes and consideration of relevant case laws:
The Tribunal considered various judgments cited by both parties, including rulings from the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other legal precedents. The discussion revolved around the nature of rectifiable mistakes, the importance of considering cited case laws, and the impact of non-consideration on the final decision-making process.

8. Recalling and tagging of appeals for final hearing:
After considering the arguments presented, the Tribunal concluded that both appeals should have been disposed of together. They noted that the judgments cited by the appellant were not adequately considered, leading to prejudice. As a result, the final order was recalled, and both appeals were tagged together for final hearing, addressing the appellant's concerns regarding the non-simultaneous disposal of appeals.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues involved in the case and the Tribunal's decision to recall the final order and tag both appeals together for final hearing.

← Previous Next →