2017 (5) TMI 747 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of mistake - duty drawback - Held that - Error apparent on the face of record means an error which strikes on mere looking and does not require long drawn process of reasoning where there may be conceivably two opinions. The mistake must be patent that its discovery does not need elaborate arguement. At present the arguments put forward by the Ld. Counsel in this application for rectification of mistake is only repetition of the contentions noted in the Final Order. Further, it necessitates detailed hearing and reasoning process. This infact would tatamount to review of the Final Order for which the Tribunal does not have any powers. There is no error apparent on the face of the record which needs rectification - ROM application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of mistake in a Final Order regarding rejection of drawback claims for goods supplied to SEZ units under Central Excise Act.

Analysis:
The appellant filed an application for rectification of mistake in the Final Order regarding rejection of drawback claims for goods supplied to SEZ units. The appellant contended that the Final Order suffered from an error apparent on the face of the record. The rejection of drawback claims was based on various grounds, including time bar under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, lack of proof of value received from SEZ units' foreign currency account, and lack of proof that exported goods were not manufactured using duty-free inputs imported against advance license.

In the first appeal, a show cause notice was issued for a specific bill of export, while for other drawback claims, only letters were issued intimating rejection without show cause notices. The appellant argued that the Final Order dismissing both appeals did not consider the submissions made during the hearing, leading to the error in the order. The appellant emphasized that the second proviso of Rule 3 of drawback should not apply for rejection, as only five inputs were imported duty-free, and the remaining 27 inputs were procured by paying duty.

The respondent opposed the Rectification of Mistake (ROM) application, stating that the Final Order did not contain any apparent errors and that the appellant could file an appeal instead of seeking a re-hearing. The respondent argued that re-hearing the appeal would amount to a review, which the Tribunal lacked the power to conduct under the statute.

Upon hearing the submissions, the Member(Judicial) examined the Final Order and the ROM application. It was noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the drawback claims due to the appellant's inability to demonstrate that duty-free inputs were not used in manufacturing finished products. The appellant's argument about using only a limited number of duty-free inputs was considered repetitive as it had already been discussed in detail in the previous order. The Member(Judicial) concluded that there was no error apparent on the face of the record that required rectification. The application for rectification was dismissed, emphasizing that an error apparent should be easily discernible without extensive reasoning or debate.