2024 (10) TMI 1627 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of mistake - mistake apparent on record - oversight in not extending the cum-duty benefit in the final order - HELD THAT - It is found that the appellants have made a request for extending benefit of cum-duty; it appears that the request was not analyzed and no finding on the same was given in the said order. To that extent, there is a mistake apparent on the face of the records due to oversight which requires to be corrected. Hon ble Supreme Court in the appellant s own case 2002 (2) TMI 101 - SUPREME COURT held that 'the Tribunal was right in directing that the respondent is entitled to the benefit of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excises Salt Act.' The ROM application requires to be accepted. The last Para of the Final Order shall now read as follows in place of the existing para '16. In view of the above, both the appeals are partly allowed restricting the demand to normal period and setting aside the penalty. However, the appellants are required to pay interest, as applicable, on the duty confirmed for the normal period. The appellants shall be entitled to cum-duty benefit.' Conclusion - The rectification of mistake application was granted, the appellants were entitled to cum-duty benefit. ROM application allowed.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:

• Whether the rectification of mistake application filed by the appellants is maintainable due to the oversight in not extending the cum-duty benefit in the final order.
• Whether the appellants are entitled to the cum-duty benefit under the relevant legal framework and precedents.
• Whether the pool lifting charges should be included in the assessable value and if this inclusion precludes the extension of cum-duty benefit.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Maintainability of the Rectification of Mistake Application

• Relevant legal framework and precedents: The rectification of mistake application is governed by procedural rules that allow correction of errors apparent on the face of the record.
• Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court recognized that the omission to consider the cum-duty benefit was an oversight, constituting a mistake apparent on the record.
• Key evidence and findings: The court noted the absence of analysis on the cum-duty benefit request in the final order.
• Application of law to facts: The oversight was deemed a correctable error, allowing the application for rectification.
• Treatment of competing arguments: The Department opposed the application, arguing that the pool lifting charges were rightly included in the assessable value, thus precluding cum-duty benefit. However, the court focused on the procedural aspect of the oversight.
• Conclusions: The application for rectification of mistake was accepted, and the oversight was corrected.

Issue 2: Entitlement to Cum-Duty Benefit

• Relevant legal framework and precedents: The court referred to several precedents, including decisions in Zircon Private Limited, Sunil Trading Co., and Maruti Udyog Limited, which support the entitlement to cum-duty benefit.
• Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court emphasized that the sale price should be regarded as inclusive of excise duty, aligning with the principle that the price charged includes all taxes unless separately itemized.
• Key evidence and findings: The court highlighted past decisions where cum-duty benefit was recognized, and the Department had not contested these findings.
• Application of law to facts: The court applied the principle that the sale price is inclusive of duty, thereby entitling the appellants to cum-duty benefit.
• Treatment of competing arguments: The Department cited cases like Bharati Tele-ventures Ltd. to argue against cum-duty benefit, but the court found these inapplicable due to differing contexts.
• Conclusions: The appellants were entitled to cum-duty benefit, and the final order was amended to reflect this entitlement.

Issue 3: Inclusion of Pool Lifting Charges in Assessable Value

• Relevant legal framework and precedents: The court examined precedents including Amrit Agro Industries Ltd., which discuss the components of assessable value.
• Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court acknowledged the Department's position that pool lifting charges are part of the transaction value but focused on the broader principle of cum-duty entitlement.
• Key evidence and findings: The court noted that the appellants did not separately charge duty on pool lifting charges, supporting the cum-duty argument.
• Application of law to facts: Despite inclusion in assessable value, the court found that the overall price was still inclusive of duty.
• Treatment of competing arguments: The Department's reliance on precedents was found insufficient to negate the established principle of cum-duty inclusion.
• Conclusions: The inclusion of pool lifting charges did not preclude cum-duty benefit.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

• Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: "The sale price realised by the respondent has to be regarded as the entire price inclusive of excise duty because it is the respondent who has, by necessary implication, taken on the liability to pay all taxes on the goods sold."
• Core principles established: The principle that the sale price is inclusive of excise duty unless separately itemized was reinforced, confirming entitlement to cum-duty benefit.
• Final determinations on each issue: The rectification of mistake application was granted, the appellants were entitled to cum-duty benefit, and the final order was amended to reflect these conclusions.