2004 (9) TMI 211 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Rectification of Mistake Apparent from the Record
2. Eligibility of Modvat Credit on Felts and Wires
3. Concession by Counsel at Hearing Stage
4. Applicability of Subsequent Judicial Pronouncements
5. Distinction Between Review and Rectification

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Rectification of Mistake Apparent from the Record:
The appellants sought rectification of a perceived mistake in the Tribunal's Final Order No. 644/1991, arguing that the denial of input duty credit on Felts and Wires was a mistake apparent from the record. The Tribunal, however, found no mistake apparent from the record, noting that the appellants' Counsel had conceded that their case was covered against them by a previous decision (Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Ltd. v. CCE). The Tribunal emphasized that the concession made by the Counsel at the hearing stage was binding and did not constitute a mistake that warranted rectification.

2. Eligibility of Modvat Credit on Felts and Wires:
The appellants treated Felts and Wires as inputs eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The original authority and the Collector (Appeals) disallowed this credit, holding that these items were parts of paper-making machinery rather than inputs used in the manufacture of paper. The Tribunal upheld this view, referencing its earlier decision in Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Ltd. v. CCE, which held that Felts and Wires were essentially parts of paper-making machinery and not eligible for Modvat credit as inputs.

3. Concession by Counsel at Hearing Stage:
At the hearing stage, the appellants' Counsel conceded that their case was covered against them by the Tribunal's decision in Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Ltd. v. CCE. The Tribunal noted that this concession was made after reiterating the grounds of appeal and was a decisive factor in the Final Order. The Tribunal rejected the argument that this concession was a mistake that could be rectified, emphasizing that the concession was made in the absence of any contrary decision at that time.

4. Applicability of Subsequent Judicial Pronouncements:
The appellants argued that a subsequent decision in Straw Products Ltd. v. CCE & C, which held that Felts and Wire netting were eligible for Modvat credit, should be considered for rectifying the earlier Final Order. The Tribunal, however, held that a subsequent judicial pronouncement could not be a ground for rectification of an earlier Final Order. This view was supported by the majority decision in Gujarat State Fertilisers & Chemicals v. CCE, which relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Dokka Samuel v. Dr. Jacob Lazarus Chelly, stating that an omission to cite an authority of law was not a ground for reviewing a judgment.

5. Distinction Between Review and Rectification:
The Tribunal emphasized that it had no power of review but only the power to rectify mistakes apparent from the record. The scope of rectification was narrower than that of review. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants' application, which sought to reverse the decision based on a subsequent judgment, was essentially a request for review rather than rectification. The Tribunal reiterated that the finality of its orders should not be disturbed by subsequent judicial pronouncements, as it was subject only to the provisions of Section 35G or Section 35L of the Central Excise Act.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the application for rectification, holding that there was no mistake apparent from the record in the Final Order. The concession made by the appellants' Counsel at the hearing stage was binding, and subsequent judicial pronouncements could not be grounds for rectification. The Tribunal reaffirmed the finality of its orders, subject only to the provisions for appeal or reference to higher judicial authorities.