2017 (2) TMI 485 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of mistake - certain factual error crept into the said order, which needs to be rectified - Held that - This Tribunal, after analyzing the case laws on the subject and the arguments advanced by both sides, arrived at the conclusion that payment of duty on the part of the applicant, while clearing the goods was appropriate and accordingly rejected their appeal. The conclusion of the Tribunal, whether correct in law or otherwise, cannot be considered again in the garb of rectification of mistake apparent on the record, which would tantamount to review of the order, an authority, in my view, is not vested with this Tribunal - application for ROM dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Rectification of mistake apparent on the face of record in a miscellaneous application filed before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad.

Analysis:
1. Factual Errors in the Order:
The appellant filed a miscellaneous application seeking rectification of a mistake apparent on the face of the record. The advocate for the appellant argued that certain factual errors had crept into the order, which needed rectification. He contended that the basis on which the appeal was decided was never raised in the proceedings before the lower authorities. The errors were explained in detail in Paragraphs 9 to 14 of the miscellaneous application.

2. Contention of the Revenue:
The authorized representative for the Revenue opposed the application, stating that the order was dictated in the presence of both the appellant and the Revenue. He argued that there was no factual error apparent on the face of the record. He highlighted the process where the principal manufacturer sent iron and steel products to the appellant for conversion into fermenters/columns on a job work basis. The appellant then cleared the converted products to the principal manufacturer, who used them in their factory, claiming duty exemption as capital goods. The Revenue contended that there was no dispute regarding the receipt, conversion, and clearance of the products.

3. Tribunal's Decision:
After considering the submissions from both sides, the Tribunal found that the order was dictated in the presence of the appellant and the Revenue. It was noted that there was no dispute about the facts of the case. The Tribunal had analyzed relevant case laws and arguments before concluding that the duty payment by the appellant upon clearance of the goods was appropriate. The Tribunal emphasized that the conclusion reached could not be reconsidered under the guise of rectification of a mistake apparent on the record, as it would amount to a review of the order, a power not vested with the Tribunal.

4. Legal Precedent and Dismissal:
The Tribunal referred to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to emphasize that rectification of a mistake should be limited to obvious and patent errors, not debatable points or incorrect applications of law. As the miscellaneous application lacked merit, it was dismissed by the Tribunal. The decision was pronounced in the open court, and the application was deemed devoid of merit.