2017 (1) TMI 644 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of mistake - Held that - in identical matters before other co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal, matter had been remanded to the Commissioner with directions to consider the RSO price as cum-duty price in computing the demand. There is an error apparent on the face of the record which needs to be rectified - all errors rectified - appeal allowed - decided in favor of applicant.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of mistake in Final Order relating to duty demand, interest, and penalties.

Analysis:
The appellants filed applications seeking rectification of a Final Order dismissing four appeals and upholding duty demand, interest, and penalties. The learned counsel argued that the Tribunal omitted to consider certain material submissions, including issues related to quantification of duty, exclusion of payment made by the appellants, consideration of unsold stocks, recalculation of duty liability after granting cum-duty benefit, and the sustainability of penalties. The counsel also cited relevant Tribunal decisions and requested a remand to the original adjudicating authority for reconsideration of specific issues. The Department contended that no rectification was necessary. However, the Tribunal found merit in the counsel's submissions, noting similar remands in other cases. Consequently, the Final Order was recalled and modified to address the issues raised by the appellants, including setting aside penalties and granting cum-duty benefits for reassessment of duty liability.

The Tribunal referred to specific paragraphs from previous decisions highlighting the importance of considering RSO price as cum-duty price for demand computation and the inapplicability of penalties within the normal period. Following these precedents, the Tribunal acknowledged errors in the Final Order and decided to rectify them. The modified orders included setting aside penalties equivalent to duty liability, granting cum-duty benefits for assessable value calculation, and remanding specific appeals for further consideration on identified issues. The Tribunal emphasized the need for denovo proceedings to allow the appellants to present their arguments effectively.

In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of all rectification applications by setting aside penalties, granting cum-duty benefits, and remanding certain appeals for detailed reconsideration. The Tribunal also corrected the cause title in the Final Order to include the names of all appellants. The decisions were pronounced and dictated in open court, ensuring transparency and procedural correctness in the rectification process.