2016 (3) TMI 803 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of mistake - Tribunal while passing the order had not considered the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of Gautam Weaving Mills vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur (2008 (1) TMI 771 - CESTAT, MUMBAI ) as is squarely applicable in the present case - Held that - find that the Tribunal had given a finding that M/s. Gautam Weaving Mills (supra), even the period after 2004, in that case the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of grey fabrics and not the job worker. It is seen that the Tribunal had given a finding for not following the decision of the Gautam Weaving Mills (supra). Regarding the limitation, the Tribunal had recorded the submission of the Learned Advocate in the final order. It is seen that the Tribunal had rejected the submission of the Learned Advocate on the ground that the Central Excise audit officers during the verification of the records detected the irregular availment of the Cenvat Credit. Hence, the extended period of limitation would be involved. In any event, the Hon ble Supreme Court held that the Tribunal has no power to review its own order and it should not be done, while there is a long drawn process. Hence, do not find any merit in the application filed by the applicant. Rom application is rejected.

Issues:
Rectification of mistake in the Final Order dated 06/11/2015 - Consideration of earlier Tribunal decision in the case of Gautam Weaving Mills - Requirement to submit endorsed invoices with monthly ER-I return - Invocation of extended period of limitation - Tribunal's power to review its own order.

Analysis:
The applicant filed an application for rectification of mistake in the Final Order dated 06/11/2015, contending that the Tribunal did not consider the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of Gautam Weaving Mills. The applicant argued that the decision in Gautam Weaving Mills was relevant to the present case and that the Tribunal had incorrectly invoked the extended period of limitation. The Learned Advocate emphasized that there was no requirement to submit endorsed invoices with the monthly ER-I return, citing the CBEC Manual. On the other hand, the Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue argued that the Tribunal cannot review its own order and that rectification should be of a technical nature, asserting that the Tribunal had already addressed the relevant issues in its original order.

Upon review, the Tribunal reproduced a portion of the Final Order dated 06/11/2015, highlighting various cases cited by the Learned Advocate. The Tribunal differentiated the facts of those cases from the present matter, emphasizing that the appellant in the case at hand was engaged in the manufacture of grey fabrics, not as a job worker. The Tribunal also noted that there was no evidence that the Central Excise officers were aware of the Cenvat Credit availment on the endorsed invoices, leading to the invocation of the extended period of limitation. The Tribunal rejected the argument that the demand was barred by limitation, based on the findings during the verification of records by Central Excise audit officers.

In its analysis, the Tribunal acknowledged the argument made by the Learned Advocate regarding the limitation issue but ultimately rejected it based on the detection of irregular Cenvat Credit availment during audit verification. The Tribunal cited a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, affirming that the Tribunal does not have the power to review its own order. Consequently, the application for rectification of mistake was dismissed, as the Tribunal found no merit in the applicant's submission. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to legal procedures and the limitations on the Tribunal's authority to review its own orders, highlighting the need for a thorough and meticulous process in legal proceedings.

← Previous Next →