2005 (4) TMI 133 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of Mistakes (ROM) against Tribunal Final Order, Confiscation of goods, Duty and Cess demand, Imposition of penalties, Applicability of Central Excise Notification, Jurisdiction of authorities, Errors in Tribunal's Final Order, Export obligation fulfillment, Penalty imposition, Jurisdiction of Commissioner of Customs in Central Excise matters.

Analysis:
The case involved an application for Rectification of Mistakes (ROM) against Tribunal Final Order Nos. 1164 & 1165/2004. The Tribunal had upheld the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Customs, which included confiscation of goods, duty and cess demand, and imposition of penalties on the appellants. The appellants contended that there were mistakes in the Final Order, primarily related to the applicability of Central Excise Notification and jurisdiction issues.

The learned Advocate for the appellants argued that certain statements in the Final Order were incorrect, such as the appellants making direct imports and not executing a bond with the Central Excise authority. The appellants had actually procured goods indigenously, not through direct imports. The Advocate also highlighted that the Tribunal did not properly consider the jurisdiction issue raised by the appellants during the proceedings.

On the other hand, the JCDR argued that the Tribunal had thoroughly considered all points in the Final Order and that revisiting the issues would amount to a review of their own order. The JCDR relied on previous decisions to support this argument.

Upon careful examination of the case records, the Tribunal found that the appellants had obtained an Advance Licence for raw goods under a specific Central Excise Notification. The Tribunal noted that the goods were procured indigenously for export, not through imports. The Tribunal emphasized that the Customs duty could not be demanded on indigenously procured goods under the mentioned Notification. Additionally, the Tribunal highlighted the jurisdiction of the Central Excise authorities in such matters and the importance of fulfilling export obligations.

Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the Order-in-Original and remanded the matter to the Jurisdictional Central Excise Commissioner for quantification of duty liability, considering the exports already made. The Tribunal also ruled out penalty imposition due to the absence of mala fide intent on the part of the appellants. The Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner of Customs had no jurisdiction in Central Excise duty matters and recalled the Final Order for a re-hearing based on the correct facts presented.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the ROM application, emphasizing the errors in the Final Order and the need for a reassessment based on the correct legal provisions and factual circumstances of the case.