2018 (4) TMI 1012 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of mistake - case of appellant is that there has been error apparent on the face of record in the Final Order since the Tribunal has not considered the contentions of the appellant with regard to the necessity for re-quantification of the duty demand - Held that - The appeal was of the year 2007 and the same was taken up for disposal only on 18.01.2017. The appellant had enough time to be ready with necessary documents and details. The Tribunal in the impugned order has considered the quantification of duty demand also. Further the contentions put forward by the appellant in this ROM touches the main issue under consideration in the appeal - These are not errors apparent on the face of record. In order to find out what is the error that is being pointed out by the appellant requires long arguments and in fact the appeal itself will have to be reheard as a whole. The application for ROM cannot be used as a guise for rehearing an appeal - ROM Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of mistake in final order regarding duty demand quantification.

Analysis:
The appellants filed miscellaneous applications seeking rectification of a mistake in the Final Order related to duty demand quantification. The appellant's contention was that the Tribunal did not consider their arguments regarding the necessity for re-quantification of the duty demand. The issue revolved around the alleged undervaluation of goods cleared on a job work basis. The appellant claimed that the actual cost of raw materials consumed was not included in the value of the goods, leading to undervaluation. The appellant requested the Tribunal to direct the department to provide necessary documents for quantification, which were not supplied despite repeated requests. The appellant argued that errors in quantification of duty demand were apparent on the face of the record, and the ROM application should be allowed.

The respondent opposed the application, stating that the alleged errors were not apparent on the face of the record. The respondent argued that the invoices did not disclose the burning loss as contended by the appellant and that the Tribunal had considered all relevant facts before passing the impugned order. The respondent claimed that the appellant's request for re-decision through the ROM application was an attempt to rehear the appeal, which was not permissible under the Tribunal's powers of review. The respondent maintained that the application should be dismissed.

After hearing both sides, the Tribunal found that the appellant had been given opportunities to furnish necessary documents and details during the proceedings. The Tribunal noted that the appeal had been pending since 2007 and was taken up for disposal in 2017, providing sufficient time for the appellant to prepare. The Tribunal concluded that the errors pointed out by the appellant did not fall under the category of errors apparent on the face of the record. The Tribunal emphasized that an error apparent on the face of the record should be easily identifiable without the need for extensive arguments. As the errors highlighted by the appellant required detailed arguments and could impact the entire appeal, the Tribunal dismissed the ROM application, stating that it could not be used as a means to rehear the appeal.

In the final order, the Tribunal held that the application filed by the appellant lacked merit, and the ROM application was dismissed.