2017 (3) TMI 10 - AT - Central Excise

Application of rectification of mistake - Change in jurisdiction - Penalty - Time limitation - Held that - there is no allegation of fraud, based on any facts leading to any active suppression or contumacious conduct on the part of the assessee. The only allegation is that the assessee herein misrepresented for obtaining the eligibility certificate for exemption - in the case of EMI Transmission Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs reported at 2013 (10) TMI 49 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , wherein under similar facts and circumstances and the financing bank - known as Japan Bank of International Corporation , is also the same It is not in dispute that on the date on which supplies were made, all the parties proceeded on the footing and that J PIC was an International Organization and that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of the said Notification No. 108/95-CE. It was only subsequently, the Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh intimated to the assessee that JPIC was not a notified International Organization and, hence, benefit of Notification No. 108/95-CE is not available to the assessee - Decided in favor of the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Correction of jurisdiction from 'Allahabad' to 'Large Taxpayer Unit - Chennai' in the final order.
2. Discrepancy in the grounds raised by Revenue in the appeal.
3. Allegation of misrepresentation for obtaining an 'eligibility certificate' for exemption.
4. Interpretation of the ruling of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in a similar case.
5. Rectification of the final order by recasting a specific paragraph.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the issue of correcting the jurisdiction mentioned in the final order from 'Allahabad' to 'Large Taxpayer Unit - Chennai' due to a change in the Commissioner's jurisdiction. The Tribunal allowed the Miscellaneous Application for this correction.

2. Another issue raised was the discrepancy in the grounds raised by the Revenue in the appeal. While the Tribunal observed that the only ground raised was the deletion of penalty, the Revenue had also raised a ground against dropping the demand for the extended period. This discrepancy was noted and rectified by the Tribunal.

3. The judgment delves into the allegation of misrepresentation by the assessee for obtaining an 'eligibility certificate' for exemption. The Tribunal found no evidence of fraud or active suppression, concluding that the assessee misrepresented to obtain the certificate. However, based on the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal relied on a ruling of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in a similar case to support its decision.

4. The interpretation of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's ruling in a similar case was crucial in this judgment. The Tribunal referred to a case involving EMI Transmission Ltd. and Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs to establish a precedent for the current case, highlighting the importance of similar facts and circumstances.

5. Lastly, the judgment involved the rectification of the final order by recasting a specific paragraph to accurately reflect the grounds raised by the Revenue in their appeal. The Tribunal recast the paragraph to align with the grounds raised and made modifications accordingly, disposing of the Miscellaneous Application for rectification of the mistake.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the Tribunal and the legal reasoning behind their decisions, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the case.