2016 (7) TMI 492 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of mistake (ROM) - issue involved is a refund matter - Revenue argued that there is no mistake apparent on the subject order of the Tribunal dated 30.12.2015. He submits that the applicant is trying to reopen the issue to have a rehearing of the matter which will amount to review of the order of the Tribunal, which is not permitted by the law. Held that - the issue has a chequered history and has passed through many rounds of litigation. We find that the applicants are seeking re-appreciation of the evidences and findings of the Tribunal on facts and law, which would amount to review of its own order which is not permitted by law. - the ROM application cannot be sustained. - Decided against the appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
Rectification of Mistake application seeking rehearing of the matter, production of Chartered Accountant certificate, raising of show cause notice under Section 11A, challenge of Tribunal order before higher appellate authority, error apparent on the record, re-appreciation of evidences and findings, review of own order, legal principles regarding rectification of mistake.

Analysis:
The Rectification of Mistake application was filed by M/s. Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Limited challenging the Tribunal order dated 30.12.2015. The applicant contended that the findings in the order were based on a mistake apparent on the record, as they had indeed produced the Chartered Accountant certificate before the lower authorities. Additionally, they argued that the Tribunal had incorrectly observed that the issue of raising a show cause notice under Section 11A was not raised before the Tribunal on earlier occasions. The applicant also raised the point that they were not barred from taking up other pleas during the remand proceedings, despite the Tribunal's observation to the contrary.

The Revenue's Authorized Representative opposed the application, stating that there was no mistake apparent on the Tribunal's order. They argued that the applicant was attempting to reopen the issue for a rehearing, which would amount to a review of the order, not permitted by law. Upon perusal of the records, it was found that the issue pertained to a refund matter from 1986-89, with a complex history involving multiple authorities and appeals. The Tribunal had remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for further proceedings, which ultimately led to the order in question dated 30.12.2015.

In the detailed analysis of the Tribunal's order, it was noted that the applicant had failed to produce the required certificate from the government authorities to support their claim of unjust enrichment. The Tribunal found that the certificate produced by the applicant was insufficient and lacked essential details, thus not meeting the criteria of a Chartered Accountant's certificate. The Tribunal also addressed the issue of raising a show cause notice under Section 11A, stating that it was not raised earlier and that the authorities had examined the matter in accordance with the Tribunal's directions.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that there was no error apparent on the record in the subject order. They emphasized that the applicant's request for re-hearing amounted to seeking a review of the order, which was not permitted by law. Citing legal principles from the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Tribunal highlighted that rectification of mistake should only be done for obvious and patent mistakes, not for debatable points or incorrect applications of law. Therefore, the Rectification of Mistake application was dismissed.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues raised by the parties, the Tribunal's findings on each issue, and the legal principles guiding the decision-making process.