2017 (5) TMI 804 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of mistake - time limitation - the amounts charged should be considered as cum duty price/amounts and duty liability needs to be reworked out - Held that - the adjudicating authority has clearly recorded that there was misstatement as to the bona fide plea of the assessee. The first appellate authority has not even recorded a single sentence on the said issue of limitation nor is there an appeal filed by the applicant or any cross objection filed by them before the Tribunal - In the absence of any contest to the order of the first appellate authority, non-addressing the issue of limitation cannot be termed as an error apparent on the face of the record necessitating recall of final order - the same findings would apply in the case and the error sought to be rectified in respect of the classification and the valuation of the parts manufactured and cleared as also the price being inclusive of all taxes and the duty liability is to be reworked out - ROM application dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Application for rectification of mistake regarding error in final order dated 21.6.2016, demand beyond limitation period, duty on spare parts, labour, and trading, cum duty price consideration, and reworking duty liability.

Analysis:

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI involved an application for rectification of mistake filed by the appellant seeking correction of an error in the final order dated 21.6.2016. The appellant contended that the demand made was beyond the normal period of limitation and time-barred. Additionally, they argued that the demand of duty on spare parts, labour, and trading was not sustainable. The appellant also claimed that the amounts charged should be considered as cum duty price, and the duty liability needed to be recalculated. On the other hand, the departmental representative argued that the Tribunal's order was correct as it set aside the adjudicating authority's order confirming the demand raised by the Revenue.

Upon careful consideration of the submissions from both sides, the Tribunal found that the application for rectification of mistake was to be dismissed for multiple reasons. Firstly, the Tribunal had followed the judgment in the case of Leisureland Pvt. Ltd., which was upheld by the Apex Court. The Tribunal had clearly recorded findings based on the judgments in the cases of Leisureland Pvt. Ltd. and Nishiland Park Ltd. However, the Tribunal had not addressed the issue of limitation raised by the appellant in the original appeal. The adjudicating authority had noted a misstatement regarding the bona fide plea of the assessee, but the first appellate authority did not address the issue of limitation. Since there was no contest to the first appellate authority's order, the non-addressing of the limitation issue could not be considered an error apparent on the face of the record requiring the recall of the final order.

The Tribunal also concluded that the error sought to be rectified regarding the classification, valuation of manufactured parts, and the price inclusive of all taxes did not warrant rectification. Ultimately, the Tribunal held that the application for rectification of mistake lacked merit and was therefore dismissed. The judgment was pronounced in court on 11.4.2017.