2003 (12) TMI 154 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification of 'Odonil' manufactured by the appellant; Correction of mistake in the rate of duty applied by the Commissioner; Power of the Tribunal to correct apparent mistakes on record.

Classification of 'Odonil':
The Tribunal considered the classification of 'Odonil' manufactured by the appellant. It set aside the demand for duty for the extended period of limitation and the penalty imposed on the assessee. The mistake highlighted was that the Commissioner's order wrongly confirmed the demand at a rate of duty of 18% ad valorem instead of the correct rate of 16% ad valorem. The duty payable by the assessee would be greater if this mistake is not corrected. The Tribunal acknowledged the mistake in the calculation sheet attached to the notice but emphasized that since there was no mistake in the Tribunal's order, the departmental representative's contention that the point was not raised before the Tribunal and therefore the application should be rejected was not valid.

Correction of Mistake in Rate of Duty:
The Tribunal referred to a decision in CCE v. EID Parry (India) Ltd. where it was held that the record referred to in Section 35C of the Act includes all proceedings and materials on which the assessment is made. The Tribunal also cited a judgment of the Supreme Court in Maharana Mills Ltd. v. ITO and a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. VKM Oil Industries to support the view that there is a mistake apparent on record which the Tribunal has the power to correct. Despite the specific point not being argued or raised before the Bench, the Tribunal concluded that the mistake in the rate of duty applied by the Commissioner could be corrected.

Power of the Tribunal to Correct Apparent Mistakes:
The Tribunal allowed the application, stating that the adjudicating authority should apply the correct rate of duty applicable at the relevant time as per the Tribunal's order. It emphasized that even if a specific point was not argued or raised before the Bench, if there is a mistake apparent on record, the Tribunal has the authority to correct it. The decision highlighted the importance of ensuring that the correct rate of duty is applied in accordance with the law.