2016 (9) TMI 1014 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of mistake - seeking rectification of various errors in the final order - Held that - it is found that the Bench has categorically recorded the findings on all the submissions made by the applicant-respondent. The Bench has also clearly indicated why it has arrived at a conclusion to hold that prior to 1.7.2000, the provisions of Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Valuation Rules, 2000 needs to be applied into, read with circular. The Bench has clearly indicated why conclusion was reached as to the expenses in respect of indirect/overhead charges needs to be included in the value/cost of the product. In our considered view, we find that all the points which have been raised by the appellant as error apparent on the face of the record, was addressed to and findings were recorded by the Bench in unequivocal terms after considering the very same submissions made. We find that the applicant-respondent is trying to reargue the entire case by stating that these are mistakes apparent on the face of the record. This is not in consonance with the settled law that error apparent on the face of the record should not be an alibi for rearguing the entire case. - Decided against the appellant

Issues: Application for rectification of mistake in final order dated 4.8.2015

Analysis:
1. Applicability of CAS-4 prior to 1.7.2000:
The respondent sought rectification, arguing that the statement that CAS-4 is not applicable before 1.7.2000 contradicts previous court judgments. The Bench, in its final order, addressed this issue in detail, citing Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Valuation Rules, 2000, and the relevant circular. The Bench explained its reasoning for applying these provisions and concluded that the respondent's contention was not valid.

2. Non-Following of High Court Judgment:
The appellant claimed reliance on a High Court judgment not followed by the Tribunal. The Bench acknowledged the reference to the High Court judgment but provided reasons for not following it. The respondent's argument was considered but not accepted, as the Bench explained its decision-making process in the final order.

3. Dispute Over Applicability of Circular:
The respondent contended that the Bench erred in stating they did not dispute the circular's applicability during the investigation. However, the Bench clarified that the respondent's submissions were duly considered and addressed in the final order. The respondent's attempt to reargue this point was dismissed by the Bench.

4. Inclusion of Overheads in Assessment:
The respondent disputed the inclusion of certain overheads in the assessment, claiming they were not attributable to the manufactured goods. The Bench noted this dispute but ultimately upheld the inclusion of overheads in the assessment, providing a rationale for its decision in the final order.

5. Incorrect Finding on Duty Payment:
The respondent argued that the Bench incorrectly stated they had paid duty as per a circular from May 2001 onwards. However, the respondent provided evidence contradicting this claim. The Bench reviewed the submissions but maintained its original finding based on the records and explanations provided.

6. Failure to Examine Overheads Dispute:
The respondent claimed that the Bench did not examine the dispute regarding the inclusion of overheads not related to the goods under assessment. The Bench clarified that it had considered this issue and provided a reasoned conclusion in the final order, rejecting the respondent's assertion.

7. Applicability of Revenue Neutral Doctrine:
The respondent argued that the Bench's finding on the revenue neutral doctrine was contrary to established judgments. The Bench reviewed the arguments and previous decisions but maintained its stance, concluding that the doctrine was not applicable in the present case based on the facts and legal provisions.

In conclusion, the Bench found the application for rectification of mistake devoid of merit, as it was an attempt by the respondent to reargue the entire case under the guise of errors apparent on the face of the record. The Bench dismissed the application, emphasizing that such rectification should not be used as a strategy to reopen settled matters.

← Previous Next →