2017 (12) TMI 823 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of mistake - case of appellant is that the Rule 6(6)(a) was given retrospective effect from 10.02.2006 and not 10.02.2008 as has been mentioned in para 6 and 7 of the Tribunal s order dated 17.08.2017 - Held that - in para 6 and 7 of the Tribunal s order is corrected and the date 10.02.2008 is replaced by 10.02.2006 wherever it appears. The second issue relates to the claim of the appellants that the decision in the case of Sujana Metal Products has not been considered in proper perspective - Held that - the said decision has been examined in para 5 of the impugned order. In Rectification of Mistake jurisdiction the said matter cannot be considered by the Tribunal - claim dismissed. ROM application allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rectification of Mistake application regarding retrospective effect of Rule 6(6)(a).
2. Correct appreciation of the decision in the case of Sujana Metal Products.

Analysis:
1. The first issue pertains to the Rectification of Mistake application filed by Microtol Sterilisation Services Pvt. Ltd. The applicant's counsel highlighted that Rule 6(6)(a) was given retrospective effect from 10.02.2006, not 10.02.2008 as mentioned in the Tribunal's order dated 17.08.2017. The amendment in Rule 6(6)(A) of Cenvat Credit Rules was brought by Section 144 of the Finance Act 2012, allowing retrospective amendments. The Tribunal corrected the error in the order by replacing the date "10.02.2008" with "10.02.2006" to align with the legislative intent.

2. The second issue concerns the claim by the appellants regarding the consideration of the decision in the case of Sujana Metal Products. The appellants argued that the Tribunal did not properly appreciate the said decision in the impugned order. However, the Tribunal held that in the context of Rectification of Mistake jurisdiction, the matter regarding the decision in Sujana Metal Products cannot be revisited. Consequently, the claim related to the Sujana Metal Products case was dismissed, emphasizing the limitations of the Rectification of Mistake application.

In conclusion, the Rectification of Mistake application was partly allowed by the Tribunal, addressing the retrospective effect of Rule 6(6)(a) and clarifying the treatment of the Sujana Metal Products decision within the scope of the application. The judgment, pronounced on 27/10/17, reflects the Tribunal's meticulous consideration of the legal provisions and precedents to rectify errors and dismiss claims falling outside the purview of the Rectification of Mistake jurisdiction.