1999 (3) TMI 329 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of Addendum to Order passed by the Collector of Central Excise.
2. Authority of the Collector to issue an Addendum after passing an adjudication order.
3. Demand of duty on the clearance of cement oxide colour.
4. Interpretation of Notification No. 114/73.
5. Jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority.

Analysis:

1. Validity of Addendum to Order:
The appellant contested the Addendum to the Order-in-Original issued by the Collector of Central Excise confirming a demand of Rs. 1,55,151.91 for the period from July 1986 to July 1990 on the clearance of cement oxide colour. The appellant argued that the Collector lacked the authority to issue such an Addendum as it was beyond the scope of the Central Excise Act and Rules. The appellant emphasized that no provision allowed for the addition or modification of the adjudication order after its passing. The absence of a prior notice before confirming the demand in the Addendum was also highlighted.

2. Authority of the Collector:
The Revenue, represented by the SDR, countered the appellant's argument by pointing out that the Collector had specifically found that the appellant used unspecified items, including sodium hexa meta phosphate, thus disqualifying them from the benefit of Notification No. 114/73. The Revenue argued that the Collector had determined a contravention of Rule 9(1) of the Central Excise Rules due to material suppression of facts and non-payment of appropriate duty on the product. The Revenue contended that the Addendum was justified to rectify the omission of demanding duty in the initial adjudication order.

3. Demand of Duty on Cement Oxide Colour:
The initial Order-in-Original did not confirm any demand in relation to cement oxide colour. However, the subsequent Addendum issued by the Collector confirmed a significant demand for the clearance of cement oxide colour. The discrepancy between the initial order and the Addendum raised questions regarding the validity and legal basis of the demand confirmed in the Addendum.

4. Interpretation of Notification No. 114/73:
The interpretation and application of Notification No. 114/73 were crucial in determining the eligibility of the appellant for certain benefits. The Collector's findings regarding the appellant's use of specific items and the contravention of Central Excise Rules played a pivotal role in the decision-making process.

5. Jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority:
The Tribunal examined the jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority in light of the Collector's actions. It was established that once an adjudicating authority issues an order, they have limited jurisdiction to correct errors or clerical mistakes. The Addendum issued by the Collector after a significant period from the initial order, without any mention of the demand, was deemed legally untenable. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Addendum and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant.