1984 (3) TMI 244 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Rectification of errors in the order passed under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944.
- Entitlement to clear goods free of duty under exemption notifications.
- Allegations of suppression of facts and deliberate concealment.
- Duty liability and penalty imposition.
- Entitlement to clear nickel scrap free of duty.
- Dispute regarding findings in the order.
- Review of the order by the Tribunal.
- Alleged errors apparent from the record.
- Failure to call for original records of the case.

Analysis:

The judgment pertains to an application filed under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, seeking rectification of errors in the order passed by the Tribunal. The appellants contended that they were entitled to clear goods free of duty under certain exemption notifications but were found guilty of suppression of facts and deliberate concealment. The Tribunal held that the appellants were not entitled to clear certain goods free of duty and were liable to pay duty, penalty, and fine. However, they were entitled to clear nickel scrap free of duty.

The appellants disputed the findings in the order and requested a review of the entire appeal. The Tribunal clarified that rectification under Section 35C(2) is limited to correcting "any mistake apparent from the record" and does not allow for a complete review. The appellants claimed errors apparent from the record, including the inclusion of goods in clearances for a subsequent year and the alleged failure of the Tribunal to call for original records of the case.

The Department's representative argued that mistakes apparent from the record are those that are evident on the face of it, and there were no such mistakes in this case. The Tribunal concurred, stating that the appellants failed to provide evidence to substantiate their claims regarding the goods in question. The Tribunal also explained that the practice followed in the case did not necessitate calling for original records of the case, and the appellants did not raise this issue during the appeal proceedings.

Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the application for rectification, emphasizing that there were no mistakes apparent from the record and that the appellants' request essentially sought a reevaluation of the evidence and a different finding, which was not permissible. The Tribunal's decision was based on a thorough examination of the arguments presented and the relevant legal provisions governing the rectification process under the Act.