2016 (6) TMI 989 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of mistakes - Revenue sought ROM in the order of this Tribunal dt. 11.08.2013 - apparent mistake - Held that - the mistakes/errors stated by the Revenue, seeking rectification, cannot be carried out without undertaking a re-analysis of the facts and evidences on record and the gamut of case laws cited, which would be definitely a long drawn process and ultimately result in review of the Order. - ROM application dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Rectification of mistakes in the order of the Tribunal.
2. Eligibility of the appellant for the benefit of Notification No.23/2004-CE for clearances of goods to DTA.
3. Whether a corrigendum changed the basis of the original Show Cause Notice.
4. Applicability of time limit for raising demands on DTA clearances.
5. Invocation of an extended period of 5 years in the proceedings.
6. Agitation of the issue on merits before the Adjudicating authority.
7. Imposition of penalties on the appellants.

Analysis:

1. The Tribunal was approached to decide on the eligibility of the appellant for the benefit of a specific notification. The issues mainly revolved around the corrigendum altering the basis of the original Show Cause Notice, the applicability of time limits for raising demands on DTA clearances, the invocation of an extended period of 5 years, whether the appellants agitated the issue on merits before the Adjudicating authority, and the imposition of penalties.

2. The Tribunal analyzed each issue meticulously, considering facts, evidence, and relevant case laws. It concluded that the corrigendum altering the basis of the Show Cause Notice was impermissible. It also held that the provisions of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 would be applicable for demanding duty on DTA clearances, dismissing the Revenue's contention of conflicting case laws.

3. The Tribunal's findings on the issues, including the imposition of penalties, were based on a detailed analysis of the facts and evidence on record. It determined that the mistakes/errors highlighted by the Revenue did not qualify as apparent mistakes on the face of the record, which could be rectified under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

4. Referring to the judgment in Deva Metal Powders Pvt. Ltd Vs Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P., the Tribunal emphasized that rectification of mistakes must be limited to those apparent from the record without delving into a re-analysis that would lead to a review of the order, a power not vested with the Tribunal. Citing the case of CCE, Belapur Mumbai Vs RDC Concrete (India) Pvt. Ltd, the Tribunal highlighted that rectification should address obvious and patent mistakes, not debatable points of law or fact.

5. Consequently, the Tribunal found the miscellaneous application devoid of merit and dismissed it, emphasizing that rectification was not warranted without a re-analysis that would result in a review of the order, a power beyond the Tribunal's scope.

This detailed analysis of the issues raised in the judgment showcases the Tribunal's thorough consideration of the facts, evidence, and legal principles involved in determining the eligibility of the appellant for the benefit sought and the rectification of mistakes in the order.