2017 (5) TMI 596 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of Mistake - SSI benefit under N/N. 08/2003 dated 01.03.2003 - scope of Rural area - Held that - The SCN was issued by the Department stating that the villages Thummaluru (Appeal No.E/2609/2010) and Maheswaram (Appeal No.E/2614/2010) are included in the GO No.274 dated 20.04.2007 where by these villages are added to the jurisdiction of HUDA. That therefore, these villages ceased to be rural area and that therefore appellants cannot claim the benefit of N/N. 8/2003. The Schedule produced by the appellant/assessee has serial Nos. 1 to 184 and therefore serial No. 561 to 600. The pages in between has conveniently not been produced by the appellant/assessee. The Tribunal relied upon incomplete documents. The missing pages are now brought to the notice of the Tribunal. Therefore, there is an error apparent on the face of record which need rectification - after notification by HUDA the appellant has not produce any revenue records/documents to establish that these villages are still in rural area. Further without producing the relevant pages the appellant ought not to have put forward the argument that they are not included in the Schedule to HUDA. There is an error in the impugned Final Order in both the appeals - ROM allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of Mistake in appeal Nos.E/2614/2010 and E/2609/2010 regarding SSI benefit under Notification No.08/2003 dated 01.03.2003 based on the inclusion of villages Thummaluru and Maheswaram in the jurisdiction of HUDA.

Analysis:
1. The Department filed an application for Rectification of Mistake (ROM) in the appeal Nos.E/2614/2010 and E/2609/2010. The issue revolved around whether the appellant fell within a rural area to claim SSI benefit under Notification No.08/2003. The Department argued that the villages Thummaluru and Maheswaram were included in the jurisdiction of HUDA as per GO.Ms. No.274 dated 20.04.2007, making them urban areas. The Tribunal initially accepted the appellant's contention that these villages were not included in the Schedule, but the Department later produced the complete Schedule showing the villages' inclusion. The Department claimed that an error had occurred in the Final Order due to reliance on incomplete documents by the Tribunal.

2. The respondent/assessee opposed the ROM application, arguing that the villages remained rural despite being included in the HUDA jurisdiction for development purposes. The respondent cited previous judgments where the certificate issued by the Tahsildar was considered sufficient to determine the rural status of locations. The respondent emphasized that the villages' development status had not been proven, and the Tribunal had correctly relied on the certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer. The respondent highlighted that the Tribunal's decision was in line with past judgments regarding rural area classification.

3. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal reviewed the impugned Final Order and noted that the Department had issued a Show Cause Notice based on the inclusion of villages Thummaluru and Maheswaram in the HUDA jurisdiction. However, the Schedule attached to the relevant GO did not include these villages. The Tribunal found that the Department's show-cause notices lacked a factual basis, and the appellant had produced a certificate from the Mandal Revenue Officer supporting their claim. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeals based on the lack of evidence proving the villages' urban status.

4. Upon further examination, it was revealed that the appellant had not produced complete pages of the Schedule, leading to reliance on incomplete documents by the Tribunal. The Department presented the missing pages, showing the villages' inclusion in the Schedule. The Tribunal acknowledged the error in relying on incomplete documents and the need for rectification based on the complete Schedule provided by the Department.

5. The appellant's argument that the villages remained rural despite inclusion in the HUDA Schedule was countered by the lack of evidence supporting their claim. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of producing relevant revenue records/documents to establish the villages' rural status post-notification by HUDA. The appellant's failure to provide complete pages of the Schedule weakened their argument against the villages' urban classification.

6. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that there was an error in the impugned Final Order due to reliance on incomplete documents. Upon reviewing the complete Schedule, it was determined that the villages Thummaluru and Maheswaram could not be considered rural areas. The Final Orders in the appeals were recalled, and the appeals were dismissed, with the ROM application being allowed accordingly.