2004 (8) TMI 148 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Validity of corrigendum issued by original adjudicating authority after the Adjudication Order.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal challenged the validity of a corrigendum issued by the original adjudicating authority after the Adjudication Order. The main question was whether the corrigendum was valid or not. The Deputy Commissioner had initially passed an Order-in-Original on 25-2-1999 confirming the demand and imposing a redemption fine. Subsequently, on 6-9-1999, a corrigendum was issued to the original order, altering the demand of duty and imposing additional penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) held the corrigendum invalid, citing a Board's Circular and opining that the Commissioner of Customs does not have the power to review or correct an order once passed. The Law Ministry's opinion supported this view, stating that the corrigendum was akin to a review of the decision, which is not allowed under the law.

The respondent-company relied on a judgment in the case of Modi Paints & Varnish Works v. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut, where the Tribunal held that an addendum creating duty liability after a considerable time was not sustainable in law. Another case cited was Prakalathan Barlasait v. Collector of Customs, where it was established that the adjudicating authority becomes functus officio after passing an order and has limited jurisdiction in correcting errors. The Tribunal, considering the Board's Circular and the precedents cited, rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue, affirming that the corrigendum was not legally sustainable. The cross-objection filed by the assessee was also disposed of accordingly.