2018 (8) TMI 1445 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of mistake - Valuation - goods which were cleared for supply and paint contract - valuation as per Rule 11 of Valuation Rules or not? - Held that - The arguments put forth by the Learned Consultant today are seeking to argue the entire cases, which are not mandated for rectifications of mistake applications can be made only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record - in this case, the applications made, seek to be argue the entire cases, we find that, these applications are do not merit any indulgence - ROM application dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Rectification of mistake in valuation of goods

Analysis:
The judgment deals with rectification applications filed for mistakes in the Final Order related to the valuation of goods cleared for supply and paint contract. The appellant argued that the valuation was wrongly done and should have been as per the Valuation Rules. The Tribunal had earlier concluded that Rule 11 of the Valuation Rules would apply, and the value was recomputed after deductions. The dispute originated from a previous decision of the Tribunal where it was clearly stated how the conclusion was reached regarding the application of Rule 11. The appellant's arguments were deemed to be seeking to re-argue the entire case, which is not the purpose of rectification applications. The Tribunal held that these applications did not show any error apparent on the face of the record and, therefore, dismissed the applications for rectification of mistakes.

This judgment underscores the importance of adhering to the Valuation Rules in determining the value of goods cleared for supply and contracts. It clarifies that rectification applications should only be made when there is an error apparent on the face of the record, and not to re-argue the entire case. The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the rectification applications emphasizes the need for parties to present clear and specific grounds for rectification, based on legal provisions and established facts rather than seeking to revisit the entire case.

Overall, the judgment provides a clear interpretation of the application of Valuation Rules in determining the value of goods and highlights the limited scope of rectification applications. It serves as a reminder for parties to carefully consider the grounds for rectification and ensure that they demonstrate errors that are evident on the face of the record, rather than attempting to re-litigate the entire case through such applications.