2015 (4) TMI 1297 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of Mistake - error apparent on the face of record - Valuation of goods - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - On the time bar issue and invocation of extended period, it is observed that this Bench has given detailed findings in Para 7 of the order dated 24-7-2014, after perusal of records which also included the judgments relived upon by the appellant in Para 2 of the order dated 24-7-2014, passed by this Bench. The time bar aspect and invocation of extended period is a mixed question of Law and facts which has to be seen with respect to the facts of each case - There does not seem to be any mistake apparent from the case records with respect to this aspect and ROM filed on this account needs rejection. Valuation of goods - HELD THAT - It is observed from Paras 37, 38 and 38.1 of the Order-in-Original No. 18/Commissioner/2010, dated 8-4-2010 - 27-4-2010, that adjudicating authority has given detailed findings as to why the data furnished by the appellant is not acceptable. The order passed by the adjudicating authority on this aspect is well reasoned, feasible and legal and is upheld. So far as contention raised at Para 2(iii) is concerned, it is observed from Para 35 of the Order-in-Original passed by the adjudicating authority that Brass Rods are classifiable under Tariff Heading 7407 21 20 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Further as par Clause (xxiv)(A)(C) of the Annexure to Notification No. 8/2003-C.E., dated 1-3-2003 Tariff Headings 7407 21 20 has not been excluded from the list of specified goods exempted under Notification No. 8/2003-Central Excise. Therefore, this is a mistake apparent from the face of facts available on record and appellant will be eligible to exemption to Brass Rods falling under Tariff Heading 7407 21 20 when used captively. ROM on this aspect is allowed. Adjudicating authority will re-quantify the demand after allowing benefit of exemption to the Brass Rods falling under Tariff Heading 7407 21 20 - ROM application allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
1. Consideration of Case Laws on limitation
2. Valuation of goods
3. Classification and exemption of Brass Rods

Analysis:
1. Consideration of Case Laws on limitation:
The appellant argued that the Case Laws on limitation were not considered in the Order dated 24-7-2014. The Revenue contended that the time-barred aspect was discussed in detail by the Bench and should lead to rejection of the ROM. The Tribunal observed that while specific findings distinguishing the judgments relied upon by the appellant were not recorded in the Order, it does not mean that the case laws were not considered. The Bench found no mistake apparent from the case records with respect to this aspect and rejected the ROM on this ground.

2. Valuation of goods:
The appellant raised concerns regarding the valuation of goods, arguing that it should be done at 115% of the cost of production under Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules. The Tribunal noted that the adjudicating authority had provided detailed reasons for not accepting the data furnished by the appellant, and the order was deemed well-reasoned and legal. Therefore, the valuation as determined by the adjudicating authority was upheld.

3. Classification and exemption of Brass Rods:
Regarding the classification and exemption of Brass Rods, the appellant contended that they should be classified under Tariff Heading 7407 21 20 and be eligible for exemption under Notification No. 8/2003. The Tribunal found that Brass Rods indeed fell under the specified goods for exemption under the said Notification. The ROM was allowed on this aspect, and the adjudicating authority was directed to re-quantify the demand, provide the exemption benefit, and rework the penalty imposed accordingly.

In conclusion, the ROM application was allowed only concerning the classification and exemption of Brass Rods, while the other issues raised by the appellant were not found to warrant any changes based on the detailed analysis provided by the Tribunal.