2018 (10) TMI 462 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of Mistake - recall of final order - Held that - The Final Order has been passed after consideration of all arguments and materials which were part of the appeal and those submitted during the course of hearing. The Final Order reflex the cumulative effect of the consideration of the entire material. The fact that the impugned order has been sustained includes sustaining the findings of the lower authority in full including reasoning for the imposition of penalty - there is no reason to recall the Final Order - ROM Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of mistake in the final order regarding the nature of roller blinds as movable or immovable property, detailed findings on distinguishing case laws, imposition of penalty.

Analysis:
The application for rectification of mistake in the final order was filed as per the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The appellant argued that the roller blinds, once installed at the customer's premises, become immovable goods and cannot be removed without substantial damage. The appellant referenced specific cases and CBEC orders to support their argument. They also contended that the blinds, custom-made for each customer, are not marketable goods. The Tribunal's final order was criticized for not providing detailed findings on the nature of the blinds and the imposition of penalty. The respondent opposed the rectification of mistake, stating that all arguments were considered before the final order was passed, and cited relevant decisions to support their stance.

Upon reviewing the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Tribunal examined the issue of whether the blinds were movable or immovable property. The Tribunal concluded that the observation in the final order regarding the blinds being movable was only an observation in passing. The Tribunal clarified that the assessment of the blinds should be based on the form in which they were cleared from the factory, regardless of whether they become movable or immovable after installation at the customer's site. The Tribunal also addressed the appellant's argument regarding the distinction of case laws and the lack of detailed findings on the penalty imposition.

The Tribunal found no reason to recall the final order, except for the amendment deleting the observation that the blinds were movable property. The final order was upheld, reflecting a comprehensive consideration of all arguments and materials presented during the appeal process. The decision was pronounced in the open court on 11/09/2018.