2016 (6) TMI 915 - AT - Central Excise

Application for Rectification of order (ROM) - Claim of exemption from duty on production of gold bars - Earlier while dictating order on the ROM , it was felt by the Bench that as the majority order has been challenged before the Hon ble Supreme Court, the order of the Hon ble Supreme Court be awaited, before taking any decision on the ROM application. - Held that - We find that the principal issue in the decided Appeals has been whether the Appellant are eligible to the benefit notifications stated above to their final product gold bar manufactured out of anode slime/dore anode. This issue has travelled up to Hon ble Supreme Court for decision and finally settled by the Hon ble Supreme Court in favour of the appellant, reported as CCE, Vadodara vs. Birla Copper Limited 2015 (11) TMI 901 - SUPREME COURT . - the present application for rectification of mistake becomes infructuous and does not merit consideration.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of mistake apparent on the face of record in the order dated 17.06.2005 regarding the levy of duty on Gold bar.

Analysis:
The ROM application was filed seeking rectification of a mistake apparent on the face of record in the order dated 17.06.2005, which recorded a difference of opinion regarding the levy of duty on Gold bar. The matter had a complex history, involving multiple hearings and adjournments. The third Member concurred with the view taken by the Member (Technical) and returned the matter to the Division Bench for pronouncing the order. The majority opinion was pronounced, and the ROM application was listed before the Division Bench. However, the Bench decided to await the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as the majority order was challenged before them.

The Advocate argued on the merits of the case, highlighting that the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, upholding the views expressed by the third Member concurring with the Member (Technical). The Advocate further contended that the appellant would be eligible for the benefit of a specific notification even if duty was payable on the Gold bar, as they had discharged a certain percentage of the price of Gold Bar under the Central Excise Rules. The Tribunal was urged to consider this argument, as it was not addressed in the previous order.

The Revenue's representative submitted that since the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the benefit of relevant notifications to the final products manufactured by the appellant, the application seeking rectification of the order had become infructuous. After considering the submissions and records, the Tribunal found that the principal issue regarding the eligibility of the appellant to the benefit of specific notifications for their final product, Gold bar, had been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in favor of the appellant. Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the other issues raised by the appellant as academic and unnecessary to address. The application for rectification of mistake was deemed infructuous and disposed of accordingly.