2001 (9) TMI 334 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Capacity determination under Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 2000; Validity of Commissioner (Appeals) order rescinding a previous order.

Capacity Determination Issue:
The appellants operated under the Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 2000. Initially, capacity was determined based on 5.36 chambers. The request for redetermination due to the permanent shutdown of two chambers was denied by the Commissioner. The monthly liability was determined for the years 2000-2001 and 16-12-1998 to 28-2-2000. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeals, noting that the appellants operated with three chambers due to the destruction of two chambers before certain notifications. The Commissioner (Appeals) found the impugned order passed without considering the vital issue and rescinded it. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) had sufficient time to take appropriate action, and rescinding the order was not permitted under the law.

Validity of Commissioner (Appeals) Order Issue:
The Commissioner (Appeals) rescinded the order issued on 27-7-2001 inadvertently and scheduled a personal hearing. The appellant contended that once an appellate authority passed an order, changes could only be made for clerical or arithmetical errors. Citing a previous case, the Tribunal agreed that a substantive change in decision could only be made in accordance with the law. The Tribunal found the impugned order rescinding the previous order to be wrong in law and allowed the appeal, setting aside the order dated 10-8-2001. The Tribunal emphasized that rescinding one's own order was not permitted under the relevant law and advised the jurisdictional authority to file an appeal if the orders were found to be incorrect in law.

This judgment dealt with issues related to capacity determination under specific rules and the validity of an appellate authority's order rescinding a previous decision. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of considering vital issues in decisions, the limitations on changing decisions once finalized, and the proper procedures for addressing incorrect orders.