2020 (3) TMI 736 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of Mistake - Section 35C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - SSI Exemption - Clandestine removal - HELD THAT - A bare perusal of the aforesaid sub-section (2) of Section 35C of the Act indicates that the Appellate Tribunal may, with a view to rectify any mistake apparent from the record, amend any order passed by it under sub-section (1). Sub-section (1) provides that the Appellate Tribunal may, after giving the parties to the appeal, an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit, confirming, modifying or annulling the decision for a fresh adjudication. What is, therefore, necessary for a mistake to be rectified is that it must be apparent from the record. It, therefore, follows that what cannot be corrected by way of rectifications is a decision on a debatable point of law or fact or failure to apply the law to a set of facts which still to be investigated. But if the mistake otherwise is such an inaccuracy which is so obviously apparent, the same can be rectified by any of the nodes as mentioned in the Section 35C of CESTAT Rules. The findings of the impugned order are based on wrong observations and wrong application which definitely amounts to be an error apparent on record - the impugned final order is recalled - application allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Rectification of mistake in the Final Order regarding entitlement for SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003 and penalty imposition for alleged clandestine removal of goods.

Analysis:
1. The appellant sought rectification of a Final Order denying SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003 for 2006-2007 and upholding a penalty. The appellant argued that the Tribunal wrongly interpreted statements and failed to consider crucial evidence.

2. The appellant contended that the Tribunal's decision was based on misinterpretation of statements by key individuals and crucial evidence. The appellant highlighted discrepancies in the Tribunal's findings and emphasized the need for rectification based on errors apparent on record.

3. The Departmental Representative opposed the rectification, stating that the appellant's grievances should be addressed through an appeal, not a rectification application. Legal precedents were cited to support this argument.

4. Upon review, the Tribunal observed discrepancies in the interpretation of statements by the appellant's Director and another individual. The Tribunal noted that the Final Order did not address the retraction of a statement, indicating an error in the decision-making process.

5. The Tribunal analyzed the statements of key individuals and found discrepancies in the Tribunal's interpretation, leading to an error apparent on record. The Tribunal referred to relevant legal provisions empowering rectification of mistakes in the Final Order.

6. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal emphasized that rectifiable mistakes in tax laws are not limited to clerical errors but include subjective errors that can be discerned by a judicious mind. The Tribunal concluded that the errors in the Final Order warranted rectification.

7. Based on the analysis, the Tribunal recalled the Final Order, including the penalty imposition, due to errors in interpretation and application of law. Both applications for rectification were allowed, and the matter was directed for fresh hearing.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment, the arguments presented by both parties, the Tribunal's assessment of the evidence and legal provisions, and the ultimate decision to recall the Final Order for rectification.