1985 (11) TMI 139 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Application to amend an earlier order under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
2. Claim for refund of special excise duty paid on goods manufactured before the imposition of the duty.
3. Reference application dismissed by the Tribunal.
4. Appeal filed before the Supreme Court against the earlier order.
5. Request for rectification based on a subsequent decision by a Five Member Bench of the Tribunal.
6. Interpretation of Section 35C(2) of the Act and the power to rectify mistakes apparent from the record.

Analysis:
The case involved an application under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, by a paper manufacturing company seeking to amend an earlier order regarding the imposition of special excise duty on goods manufactured before the duty was imposed. The company had cleared the goods post the duty imposition and subsequently claimed a refund of the special excise duty paid. The Tribunal had earlier dismissed the company's appeal, leading to a reference application also being dismissed. The company then filed an appeal before the Supreme Court, which was pending at the time of this application.

The company contended that a subsequent decision by a Five Member Bench of the Tribunal supported their claim that special excise duty should not be levied on goods manufactured before the duty imposition. They sought rectification of the earlier order based on this new interpretation. However, the Tribunal noted that the power to rectify under Section 35C(2) is limited to correcting mistakes apparent from the record. The Tribunal emphasized that a mistake should be evident from a reading of the proceedings and not require detailed arguments to unravel.

The Tribunal found that the company's request essentially sought a review of the earlier decision in light of the subsequent ruling, which was not available when the original appeal was decided. The Tribunal clarified that the power to rectify is not meant for reviewing past decisions based on subsequent developments. The Tribunal cited legal precedents to differentiate cases where retrospective amendments influenced the validity of orders, which was not the situation in this case.

Furthermore, the Tribunal distinguished another case where a Bench modified its order based on a High Court decision, highlighting the lack of similarity with the present matter. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that there was no mistake apparent in the earlier order and, therefore, dismissed the company's application for rectification under Section 35C(2) of the Act.