2017 (10) TMI 189 - AT - Central Excise

Application for substantial expansion - N/N. 56/2002-CE dt. 14.11.2002 - substantial benefit was denied for the period 01.09.2006 to 20.03.2007 by way of corrigendum without affording any opportunity being heard - Held that - the impugned corrigendum has been issued after a period of 3 months. Admittedly, the corrigendum adversely affects the claim of the respondents and their date of eligibility to the notification undergoes change. In this background, the corrigendum cannot be said to be simply clarificatory - Besides, there is application of mind on the part of the adjudicating authority as to the date the benefit should be given. Without doubt it brings about a substantive change which is prejudicial to the interest of respondents. Such a material change could not be made by the adjudicating authority as being quasi-judicial authority it could not review its own order in the absence of express powers in the statute - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of the corrigendum issued by the adjudicating authority altering the eligibility date for notification benefits.
2. Whether the corrigendum was merely clarificatory or brought about a substantive change prejudicial to the respondents.
3. Jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority to review its own order without express statutory powers.
4. Applicability of the Law Ministry's opinion regarding the legality of issuing corrigendum post-adjudication order.

The judgment pertains to an appeal against an order involving the approval of an application for substantial expansion to benefit from a specific notification. Initially, the Asst. Commissioner accepted the expansion claim but later issued a corrigendum altering the eligibility date. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the corrigendum, leading to the Revenue's appeal. The main contention was whether the corrigendum prejudiced the respondents' rights without proper opportunity for hearing. The Revenue argued that the corrigendum merely clarified the original order based on additional documents submitted. Conversely, the respondents contended that the corrigendum altered their eligibility date, affecting their benefit claim.

Upon examination, the Tribunal found that the corrigendum, issued after a significant period, substantively changed the respondents' eligibility date, impacting their rights. The Tribunal emphasized that the adjudicating authority, being quasi-judicial, lacked the power to review its order without explicit statutory provisions. Referring to a Law Ministry Circular, the Tribunal highlighted that such substantive changes post-adjudication order issuance were legally untenable. The Law Ministry's opinion emphasized that quasi-judicial bodies, like the Commissioner of Customs, became functus officio after signing the adjudication order, precluding them from altering decisions through corrigenda.

Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal for lacking merit. The judgment underscored the importance of adhering to legal procedures and respecting the finality of adjudication orders, barring quasi-judicial authorities from making substantive changes post-issuance. The Tribunal's ruling aligned with legal principles and established precedents, safeguarding the respondents' rights against arbitrary alterations to their benefit claims.