2018 (8) TMI 1381 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of mistake - Review of order - Held that - This Tribunal after analyzing the evidence on record arrived at the conclusion that the appellant had fraudulently availed CENVAT Credit without receipt of the inputs and consequently dismissed their appeal. The plea taken by the appellant to reconsider the quantum of penalty, at this stage, would result into the review of the said order, which is contrary to the principles of law - the application seeking the rectification of the order being devoid of merit is dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Rectification of mistake in the order regarding imposition of penalty under Rules 15(1) and 15(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis:
1. The issue in this case pertains to an application seeking rectification of a mistake claimed to be apparent on the face of the order dated 21.9.2017, specifically regarding the imposition of penalty under Rules 15(1) and 15(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

2. The appellant, through their Advocate, contended that their appeal was dismissed without recording their submissions that simultaneous penalty under the mentioned rules cannot be imposed. They argued for a recall and rehearing of the case due to the absence of a finding on this issue in the original order.

3. On the other hand, the Revenue's representative argued that the appellant did not dispute the imposition of penalty under both Rules 15(1) and 15(2) in their grounds of appeal. They cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur Vs. RDC Concrete (India) Pvt. Ltd. to assert that reviewing the order at this stage would not be permissible.

4. After hearing both parties and examining the records, the Tribunal found that the appellant had fraudulently availed CENVAT Credit without receiving the inputs, leading to the dismissal of their appeal. The Tribunal concluded that reconsidering the penalty at this stage would amount to a review of the order, which is against the legal principles established by the Supreme Court in the RDC Concrete case.

5. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that the application seeking rectification of the order lacked merit and was therefore dismissed. The decision was based on the principle that revisiting the penalty issue would essentially be a review of the original order, which is not within the Tribunal's authority as per legal precedents.

This detailed analysis encapsulates the key arguments and the Tribunal's reasoning behind the decision to dismiss the rectification application concerning the imposition of penalties under the CENVAT Credit Rules.