2018 (10) TMI 1412 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of Mistake - consideration of submissions made by applicant - Held that - The submission which, as per the applicant, not considered has been recorded by the Tribunal and after considering the same, finding was given in sub-para (d) of Para 1 wherein the demand of ₹ 1,67,117/- was upheld. With this fact, it cannot be said that the submissions made by the appellant either in the appeal memo or during the hearing was not considered by the Tribunal - ROM Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Rectification of mistake in tribunal's order regarding demand of duty, equivalent penalty under section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1984, reliance on transporter's statement, cross-examination rejection, consideration of submissions and judgments.

Rectification of Mistake in Tribunal's Order:
The applicant filed for rectification of a mistake in the tribunal's order regarding the demand of duty, equivalent penalty under section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1984. The appellant argued that despite specific submissions regarding the rejection of cross-examination of the transporter's manager, the tribunal did not consider this aspect in its order. The applicant relied on various judgments on cross-examination, which were also allegedly not considered by the tribunal. However, after careful consideration of submissions and records, the tribunal found that the submissions made by the appellant were indeed considered, and a finding was given upholding the demand of ?1,67,117. The tribunal stated that it is not necessary to discuss each submission in detail while giving a finding, and therefore, no error was found in the order dated 09/01/2018. Consequently, the rectification of mistake application was dismissed.

Reliance on Transporter's Statement and Cross-Examination Rejection:
The appellant contended that the transporter's statement, relied upon for confirming the demand for alleged clandestine removal of goods under consignment notes, was used against the applicant despite the rejection of the cross-examination of the manager of the transporter by the Adjudicating Authority. The tribunal, in its final order, recorded the appellant's submission regarding the rejection of cross-examination and reliance on the transporter's statement. The tribunal found that the Revenue was able to establish the demand of ?1,67,117 based on the goods allegedly removed clandestinely, as indicated in the manager's statement. The tribunal upheld the demand along with interest and an equivalent amount of penalty. It concluded that all submissions and judgments were considered before giving the finding, and the rejection of the rectification of mistake application was justified.

Consideration of Submissions and Judgments:
The tribunal thoroughly considered the submissions made by both the appellant and the Revenue, as well as the relevant records. It specifically noted the appellant's arguments regarding the rejection of cross-examination and reliance on the transporter's statement. Despite the appellant's claim that their submissions were not adequately considered, the tribunal found that all submissions and judgments were taken into account before arriving at a decision. The tribunal emphasized that it is not obligatory to discuss every submission extensively in the final order, as long as they are considered in reaching a conclusion. Therefore, the tribunal concluded that there was no apparent error in the order dated 09/01/2018 and dismissed the rectification of mistake application.