1991 (3) TMI 288 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Rectification of mistakes in the Tribunal's order-in-appeal.
2. Adjustment of duty paid on split yarn against duty demanded on mother yarn.
3. Validity of upholding the order of confiscation by the Tribunal.
4. Application of Section 11C of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
5. Exercise of inherent powers by the Tribunal to stay show cause notice for duty recovery.
6. Tribunal's observation on marketability and related arguments.

Analysis:

1. The judgment deals with a second application for rectification of apparent mistakes in the Tribunal's order-in-appeal. The applicant argued that errors arose from the Tribunal's order, which did not address the adjustment of duty paid on mono-filament yarn against the duty on mother yarn. The Tribunal had previously corrected certain errors in a different order. The applicant contended that duty already paid should be adjusted, citing case law supporting this principle. The Tribunal had confirmed a redemption fine but set aside a demand, leading to a plea for stay on further demands pending final decisions.

2. The Tribunal had already considered the plea for set off of duty paid on split yarn against duty on mother yarn in a previous order. The Tribunal upheld the order of confiscation based on a violation of Rule 9(2) regarding the removal of dutiable goods without assessment. The Tribunal found no error in its previous decision regarding the duty adjustment issue and rejected the applicant's arguments.

3. The judgment also addresses the application of Section 11C of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, which allows for the levy of duty on goods not previously subjected to duty due to general practice. The Tribunal dismissed the plea for inherent powers to stay the show cause notice for duty recovery, emphasizing that detailed findings had been provided on the marketability issue, despite the applicant's claims to the contrary.

4. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the application for rectification, citing the Supreme Court's criteria for a mistake apparent on the record. The judgment highlights the need for clear and obvious errors for rectification and emphasizes that decisions on debatable legal points do not qualify as apparent mistakes.