2001 (10) TMI 221 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether there was a mistake apparent on record in the Tribunal's order dated 31-10-2000.
2. Whether non-consideration of a crucial point raised by the appellant amounts to an error rectifiable under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether there was a mistake apparent on record in the Tribunal's order dated 31-10-2000:
The applicants, engaged in manufacturing motor vehicle chassis and parts, filed a price list showing standard fitments. They argued that due to a mistake, the standard fitments for model 1612 were incorrectly shown, leading to a dispute over additional charges. The Tribunal initially rejected their plea of mistake, upholding the order-in-original dated 2-3-98 by the Commissioner.

The Tribunal had to determine if non-consideration of certain arguments presented by the appellants constituted an error apparent on the record. The Tribunal examined whether the pleas raised were independent and alternative or merely supportive of the same contention. It was concluded that if the arguments were independent, their non-consideration would amount to an error. However, if they were supportive, non-consideration would not constitute an error apparent on the record.

2. Whether non-consideration of a crucial point raised by the appellant amounts to an error rectifiable under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944:
The appellants contended that they did not collect any extra amount for the fitments from their customers, and this crucial point was not considered by the Tribunal. They argued that this oversight was an error apparent from the records and should be rectified under Section 35C(2).

The Tribunal referenced several judgments, including those by the Allahabad High Court and the Supreme Court, which supported the view that non-consideration of important contentions affecting the merits of a case could be deemed a mistake apparent from the records. However, the Tribunal differentiated between independent pleas and supportive arguments, concluding that non-consideration of the latter does not necessitate rectification.

Separate Judgments Delivered:

Judgment by Archana Wadhwa, Member (J):
Archana Wadhwa held that there was indeed a mistake on the part of the Tribunal requiring rectification. She noted that the plea regarding the non-collection of extra amounts from customers was not considered, and thus, the appeal should be reheard on this issue.

Judgment by K.K. Bhatia, Member (T):
K.K. Bhatia disagreed, asserting that the Tribunal had already considered the appellants' main contention regarding the fitments. He argued that the rejection of the plea inherently included the rejection of the argument about non-collection of extra amounts. Therefore, he concluded that there was no mistake apparent on the record and the ROM petition should be rejected.

Judgment by V.K. Agrawal, Member (T) (Third Member):
V.K. Agrawal, as the Third Member, resolved the difference by agreeing with K.K. Bhatia. He emphasized that the various pleas raised were not independent but supportive of the main contention. Since the Tribunal had rejected the primary argument, non-consideration of supportive arguments did not constitute an error apparent on the record. Thus, he concluded there was no mistake apparent from the record.

Final Order:
In view of the majority opinion, the Rectification of Mistake Application was rejected.