2001 (3) TMI 303 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Application for rectification of mistake in the Tribunal's Final Order.

Analysis:
1. Issue of Incorrect Date of Hearing: The appellant claimed that their appeals were adjourned to 17-9-1998 instead of 16-9-1998, leading to their absence during the hearing. They requested to file written submissions, but the Tribunal rejected the plea, stating the order was already reserved. The appellant argued that the non-consideration of their plea regarding Modvat severely affected their legal rights.

2. Consideration of Modvat Credit: The appellant contended that the Tribunal did not consider the point of Modvat for the differential duty, affecting their legal rights. The respondent argued that the appellant did not claim Modvat credit if duty was payable, and the Tribunal's order did not address this issue. The respondent relied on legal precedents to support their argument that the Tribunal cannot vary judgments post-pronouncement.

3. Judicial Precedents and Legal Principles: The respondent cited legal precedents to support their argument that the Tribunal cannot revisit issues post-judgment. They referred to cases emphasizing that corrections post-judgment are limited to accidental errors, not substantive legal issues. The respondent highlighted the principle that once a judgment is passed, the Tribunal becomes functus officio.

4. Final Decision: The Tribunal rejected the application for rectification of mistake, stating that the order was pronounced in open court on 16-9-1998, and the appeals were rejected. The Tribunal noted that the appellant did not pray for Modvat credit in their original appeal. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant's plea in the appeal was to show no revenue loss to the government, not to claim Modvat credit. Therefore, the Tribunal found no error in the final order and rejected the rectification application.