2005 (11) TMI 76 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Central Excise duty demand on cotton fabrics processing.
2. Confiscation and penalty imposition for non-compliance.
3. Appeal against the order of the Adjudicating Officer.
4. Dismissal of the appeal by the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal.
5. Rectification petition filed before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.
6. Rejection of the rectification petition by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal.
7. Appeal against the rejection of the rectification petition.
8. Interpretation of Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act.
9. Application of the amendment to Section 35C(2) in rectification petitions.
10. Consideration of time-barred rectification petition.
11. Comparison with Supreme Court decisions on vested rights and limitations.
12. Dismissal of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and related petition.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in cotton fabrics processing, faced a Central Excise duty demand due to unregistered operations and lack of maintained records for mercerised fabrics (para 2).
2. Adjudicating Officer confirmed the duty demand and imposed penalties, leading to the appellant's appeal before the Tribunal (para 3-4).
3. Tribunal dismissed the appeal citing evidence and statements supporting the duty demand (para 5).
4. Appellant filed a rectification petition challenging the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing differences in operations and machinery (para 6).
5. The Larger Bench rejected the rectification petition as time-barred, referencing the amended Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act (para 7-8).
6. Appellant appealed the rejection, arguing for the substantive right to rectify mistakes beyond the amended time limit (para 9-10).
7. The Court analyzed the amended Section 35C(2) and upheld the rejection, considering the timing of the rectification petition (para 11-12).
8. Reference to the Supreme Court's decision on vested rights and limitations clarified the applicability of the amendment in rectification petitions (para 13).
9. Distinction made between the right of appeal and the right to rectify mistakes, supporting the rejection of the rectification petition (para 14).
10. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed due to lack of merit, affirming the rejection of the rectification petition (para 15).