1991 (12) TMI 176 - AT - Central Excise

Issues:
1. Rectification of mistakes apparent on record in Tribunal's order.
2. Provisional nature of assessments and tax collection.
3. Alleged mistake in fixing RG 1 stage.
4. Request for deletion of observation in final order.
5. Prayer for stay of Tribunal's final order.
6. Deviation from earlier orders and request for reference to Larger Bench.
7. Applicability of Section 129C(5) regarding reference to Larger Bench.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Rectification of mistakes on record
The applicants sought rectification of mistakes apparent in the Tribunal's order regarding provisional assessments and tax collection. The Tribunal held that it cannot review final orders and rectification of ROM orders is not permissible. The contention that the assessments were provisional was rejected, citing the lack of authority for the Tribunal to adjust duty based on provisional assessments. The Tribunal also referenced a previous case to support its decision.

Issue 2: Provisional nature of assessments
The applicants argued that the assessments made were provisional due to the nature of the Department's instructions. However, the Tribunal held that adjustments based on provisional assessments cannot be made and rejected the applicants' interpretation of the Tribunal's findings. The Tribunal emphasized that it does not have the power to review final orders and referenced a previous case to support its decision.

Issue 3: Alleged mistake in fixing RG 1 stage
The applicants alleged a mistake in the Tribunal's order regarding the fixing of RG 1 stage. The Tribunal examined the relevant letter and concluded that there was no mistake in fixing the RG 1 stage at the multifilament yarn stage, as claimed by the applicants. Therefore, the Tribunal found no grounds for rectification in this regard.

Issue 4: Request for deletion of observation in final order
The applicants requested the deletion of an observation in the final order regarding an earlier appellate order. The Tribunal stated that such a request would amount to a review, which falls outside its jurisdiction. The Tribunal emphasized that the scope of a ROM application does not include traversing the findings of a final order.

Issue 5: Prayer for stay of Tribunal's final order
The applicants sought a stay of the Tribunal's final order, citing a process of reference set in motion by a Writ Petition. The Tribunal rejected the prayer for stay, noting that once an appeal to the Supreme Court has been filed, the Tribunal is not empowered to grant a stay of its own order. The request for interim orders for the release of detained goods was also rejected.

Issue 6: Deviation from earlier orders and request for reference to Larger Bench
The applicants claimed that the Tribunal deviated from earlier orders in the final order and requested a recall of the order and a reference to a Larger Bench. The Tribunal found that this did not constitute a mistake on the face of the record and that the relevant provisions for reference to a Larger Bench were not applicable in this case. The Tribunal referenced a Supreme Court case to support its decision.

Issue 7: Applicability of Section 129C(5) regarding reference to Larger Bench
The Tribunal discussed Section 129C(5) and its application in cases where members of a Bench differ in opinion. The Tribunal referenced a Supreme Court case to highlight the power of the President to refer a case to a Larger Bench. However, in the present case where the final order has already been passed, the Tribunal stated that the statutory remedy under Section 35L of the CESA should be availed of. The miscellaneous application was rejected on these grounds.

In conclusion, both miscellaneous applications seeking rectification and reference to a Larger Bench were dismissed by the Tribunal based on the analysis of the issues involved and relevant legal provisions.

← Previous Next →