2017 (9) TMI 980 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of mistake - Default in payment of duty - applicability of Rule 8 (3A) - Held that - we cannot find any substance in the contention of the department that the issue is not similar to the issue in other appeals disposed together with this appeal. In any case the department has a remedy to file appeal if aggrieved - In various judgments it has been held that if the application for rectification is filed in the guise of review petition or if long drawn process of argument and reasoning in required to find out the error sought to be rectified then the same cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of record - there is no apparent error which needs rectification - ROM application dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Rectification of mistake in the Final Order dated 08.07.2015 regarding demand of duty, interest, and penalty under Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002.

Analysis:

1. Rectification of Mistake Application:
The Department filed an application for rectification of mistake against the Final Order dated 08.07.2015, which disposed of the appeal along with 26 other appeals. The Department argued that the issue in this appeal, related to demand of duty and penalty under Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, is different from the issues in the other appeals. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand under various rules and imposed penalties. The Department contended that the Tribunal erred in allowing the appeal as the issues were not identical. The Department sought rectification based on this alleged error.

2. Opposing Arguments:
The appellant's counsel argued that the duty demand, interest, and penalty were for contravening Rule 8(3A), and the Tribunal rightly set aside the same. The appellant company's failure to pay duty during the disputed period was due to financial difficulties, not intentional evasion. The company is now closed, and they have settled the duty liability.

3. Tribunal's Decision:
Upon hearing both sides and reviewing the records, the Tribunal noted that all 27 appeals were disposed of together due to the common issue of demand of duty, interest, and penalty for violating Rule 8(3A). The Tribunal found that the appellant had indeed violated all provisions of Rule 8, including 8(3A). The Tribunal rejected the Department's argument that the issues were dissimilar and emphasized the Department's right to appeal if dissatisfied. The Tribunal cited precedents stating that rectification cannot be sought through a review petition or lengthy reasoning process to identify errors not apparent on the face of the record. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the rectification application, finding no apparent error in the Final Order.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld its earlier decision, emphasizing the uniformity of issues across the appeals and rejecting the Department's claim of dissimilarity. The Tribunal's ruling highlighted the importance of clear, apparent errors for rectification and dismissed the rectification application.