1989 (3) TMI 292 - AT - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
1. Whether de-polymerisation and recycling are different processes for the purpose of exemption under Notifications No. 18/84-C.E. and 36/85-C.E.
2. Whether there was suppression of facts warranting the application of a longer time-limit for demanding Central Excise duty.
3. Whether the Tribunal can rectify its order under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Difference Between De-polymerisation and Recycling:
The primary issue in the present appeal is whether the process of de-polymerisation is the same as recycling for the purpose of availing benefits under Notifications No. 18/84-C.E. and 36/85-C.E. The appellants argued that both processes are identical, contending that de-polymerisation should qualify for the exemption. However, the Department did not accept this view, asserting that the processes are distinct and that the appellants were not entitled to the benefit under the said notifications. The Tribunal noted that this specific issue was not addressed in its earlier Order No. 160-161/88-D, dated 17-2-1988, which dealt with a different aspect of waste arising during the manufacture of nylon yarn.

2. Suppression of Facts:
Another significant issue is the allegation of suppression of facts by the appellants. The Department claimed that the appellants did not declare in their classification list that they would recover caprolactum from nylon waste through de-polymerisation. Consequently, a show cause notice was issued on 14-1-1987, demanding duty for the period from December 1984 to October 1985, beyond the normal period of limitation. This allegation of suppression of facts is critical as it impacts the applicability of the extended time-limit for demanding duty.

3. Rectification of Order Under Section 35C(2):
The Tribunal considered whether it could rectify its order under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Tribunal initially pronounced an operative part of the judgment orally on 1-9-1988, allowing the appeal based on the assumption that the issue was covered by its earlier decision in Order No. 160-161/88-D. Upon further review, it became apparent that the issues in the two cases were different. The Tribunal acknowledged that an error had occurred due to the material difference between the present case and the earlier order.

Shri Santhanam argued that there was no error apparent on record and referenced the Supreme Court judgment in Vinod Kumar Singh v. Banaras Hindu University, which held that a judgment delivered orally in open court must be taken as final. However, the Tribunal distinguished the present case by noting that the earlier decision dealt with a different issue and that the error was apparent on the record.

Shri Chakraborty supported rectification, citing the Tribunal's decision in 1984 (15) E.L.T. 482 (Tribunal), which allowed for recalling and rehearing in cases of apparent mistakes. The Tribunal agreed, referencing several judgments under the Income-tax Act, which have similar provisions for rectification.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that there was a clear error apparent on the record when it orally pronounced the operative part of the decision on 1-9-1988. The issues in the present case were distinct from those in the earlier Tribunal order cited by the appellants. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to recall the operative portion of its order pronounced on 1-9-1988 and directed the Registry to list the appeal for hearing on merits as soon as possible.

← Previous Next →