2016 (11) TMI 1176 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of mistake - Section 35C (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that - we do not find any error, much less any error apparent from records. The Tribunal has only very limited power to rectify any mistake apparent from the records under the provisions of Section 35C (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal does not have any powers of Review - power to rectify a mistake should be exercised when the mistake is a patent one and should be quite obvious. A different view cannot be taken in an ROM application which would amount to review / recall of the earlier order and substitute it by a different order, which could not be done by way of ROM application - ROM application not maintainable - dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of mistakes in the order dated 20.07.2015 under Section 35C (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The applicant sought rectification of mistakes apparent from the record in the order dated 20.07.2015 under Section 35C (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The counsel for the applicant argued that the Tribunal did not consider various case laws cited by them and that the duty demand beyond the normal one-year period was not sustainable as the issue was not disputed at the relevant time. He also highlighted that the question of limitation was not addressed by the Tribunal. On the other hand, the authorized representative for Revenue contended that the Tribunal followed the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the matter of CCE, Ahmedabad vs. Cadila Healthcare Limited and upheld the duty demand based on this decision. He pointed out that the penalty imposed was set aside in line with previous decisions. The authorized representative argued that the Tribunal's decision was legally correct and that the applicant was attempting to reargue the appeal through the rectification of mistakes application.

Upon careful consideration of the submissions and records, the Tribunal found that it had upheld the duty demand on merits following the binding decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. The Tribunal also followed previous decisions in setting aside the penalty imposed on the appellant. The Tribunal clarified that it had limited power to rectify any mistake apparent from the records under Section 35C (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and did not have the authority to review the decision. Citing the Supreme Court's rulings in various cases, the Tribunal emphasized that a mistake apparent on record must be obvious and patent, not requiring a long process of reasoning to establish. The Tribunal concluded that the rectification of mistakes application was not maintainable and dismissed it, citing that taking a different view through such an application would amount to a review or recall of the earlier order, which was impermissible.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the rectification of mistakes application, emphasizing that it did not find any error apparent from the records and reiterating the limited power of the Tribunal to rectify mistakes under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The judgment highlighted the importance of following binding decisions and the restrictions on the Tribunal's authority to review its own decisions through rectification applications.