1998 (7) TMI 438 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of mistakes in Tribunal's Final order regarding excisability of in-process materials in manufacturing Synthetic Rubber.

Analysis:
The case involved an application filed for rectification of mistakes in the Tribunal's Final order regarding the excisability of in-process materials in the manufacture of Synthetic Rubber. The applicants, manufacturers of Synthetic Rubber, specifically Acrylonitrile Butadiene Rubber and Styrene Butadiene Rubber (SBR), contested duty demands on in-process materials under Tariff Item 16-AA of the Central Excise Tariff. The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' findings, leading to the appeal by the assessees.

During arguments, the learned Counsel for the applicants contended that the Tribunal erred in not considering whether the processes required to convert in-process materials into Styrene Butadiene rubber were essential for excisability. The Counsel argued that the burden to establish non-excisability was wrongly placed on the assessees, especially since they manufactured marketable grades of Latex. Additionally, errors were pointed out regarding the Tribunal's reliance on a representation to the CBEC, references to a book on Rubber Technology, and the withholding of test reports, violating principles of natural justice.

The learned DR opposed the application, stating it was an impermissible review of the Tribunal's final order under the guise of rectification. However, the Tribunal found merit in some of the applicants' contentions. It acknowledged errors in denying the applicants the opportunity to address evidence from a book on Rubber Technology and the failure to address the non-availability of test results despite requests. Furthermore, discrepancies in dealing with the admissibility of certain evidence were noted.

Consequently, the Tribunal partly allowed the rectification application, emphasizing the need for re-hearing the appeal after providing adequate notice to both parties. The decision highlighted the importance of addressing errors in evidence consideration and ensuring parties have a fair opportunity to present their case for a just outcome.