1994 (8) TMI 136 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Rectification of Mistake in Tribunal's Final Order
2. Eligibility for Lower Duty under Notification No. 231/88-Cus
3. Refund of Auxiliary Duty

Detailed Analysis:

1. Rectification of Mistake in Tribunal's Final Order
The applicants filed Application No. C/ROM/14/94-C under Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, seeking rectification of an apparent mistake in the Tribunal's Final Order No. 335/93-C. The Tribunal had failed to address the issue of partial exemption of auxiliary duty on imported goods. Subsequently, a more comprehensive application (No. C/Misc./355/94-C) was filed, highlighting additional errors. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of Application No. C/ROM/14/94-C and proceeded to consider Application No. C/Misc./355/94-C.

2. Eligibility for Lower Duty under Notification No. 231/88-Cus
The applicants contended that the Tribunal failed to address several points regarding the eligibility for a lower duty rate of 35% ad valorem under Notification No. 231/88-Cus. They argued that the term "Printing Industry" should be interpreted in "common or trade parlance," referencing case law such as Dunlop India v. UOI and Porritts and Spencers (Asia) Ltd. v. State of Haryana. The Tribunal acknowledged that the scope of Heading 49.01 of the revised tariff and the relevant notes to the Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN) were not considered. However, they concluded that these submissions did not necessitate recalling the order for re-hearing the appeal. Instead, the Tribunal ordered the rectification of the order by including the omitted points and case law references.

3. Refund of Auxiliary Duty
The applicants argued that the Assistant Collector had failed to consider their claim for a refund of auxiliary duty charged in excess, which was implicit in their original claim. They cited Notification No. 141/90-Cus., which specifically covers "Photo Multiplier (Relief Image) Printing Plates." The Tribunal found that the original claim for refund did not explicitly mention auxiliary duty, leading the Collector (Appeals) to reject the claim. The Tribunal upheld this decision, stating that the claim for auxiliary duty was time-barred and not amendable from the date of the initial claim, referencing the Tribunal's decision in Modi Rayon & Silk Mills v. CCE.

Rectification of the Tribunal's Final Order:
The Tribunal identified specific errors in its Final Order No. 335/93-C, necessitating rectification. These included the omission of certain submissions and the failure to address the claim for auxiliary duty. The Tribunal ordered the following rectifications:

1. New Para 2:
- The appellants argued that their printing activities should be classified under the "Printing Industry" and not as a plastic manufacturing unit. They cited various case laws supporting a broader interpretation of the term "Printing Industry."

2. New Para 5:
- The appellants' submissions regarding the scope of Heading 49.01 of the revised Central Excise Tariff and the relevant HSN notes were acknowledged. However, the Tribunal concluded that these submissions were not relevant for interpreting the exemption notification, referencing decisions in OEN India and Guestkeen William India Ltd.

3. New Para 7:
- The Tribunal addressed the revised ground No. 11 related to the rate of auxiliary duty. They found that the original claim did not mention auxiliary duty, and thus, the Collector (Appeals) rightly rejected the claim as time-barred.

4. Re-numbering of Paragraphs:
- The existing paragraphs were re-numbered to accommodate the new paragraphs added for clarity.

The Tribunal concluded that the errors identified did not go to the root of the matter, and thus, a re-hearing of the appeal was not warranted. The rectified order addressed the omissions and provided a comprehensive analysis of the issues raised by the appellants.