2001 (9) TMI 390 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:

1. Alleged mistakes in the Final Order
2. Violation of principles of natural justice
3. Application of the extended period of limitation
4. Oversight in maintaining the common outward register
5. Burden of proof in cases of clandestine removal

Analysis:

1. Alleged Mistakes in the Final Order:
The appellant contended that the authorities failed to consider crucial points regarding the exemption claimed under Notification No. 49/86-C.E. It was argued that as the duty benefit was passed on to another entity, there was no motive for misdeclaration. Additionally, the appellant raised concerns about the lack of cross-examination opportunities, which they deemed vital for their defense. However, the Tribunal held that the rectification of mistakes application was beyond the scope of the Central Excise Act, as it involved re-examination of evidence, which was not permissible under Section 35C(2).

2. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellant raised concerns about the violation of natural justice principles due to the denial of cross-examination opportunities. They argued that such cross-examination could have disproved the alleged inter-unit transfer of semi-finished goods. Despite these arguments, the Tribunal emphasized that its order was detailed and comprehensive, addressing all relevant points. It was noted that the power to review or rehear the entire matter was beyond the Tribunal's jurisdiction, and the rectification of mistake application was rejected.

3. Application of the Extended Period of Limitation:
The Tribunal was urged to reconsider the application of the extended period of limitation, highlighting that the appellant had no intention to evade duty and that the existence of two units was disclosed to the authorities. However, the Tribunal maintained that the extended period of limitation was justified due to the alleged suppression of facts regarding the units. The Tribunal emphasized that the burden of proof in such cases rested with the Revenue, and the appellant could not be asked to prove the negative.

4. Oversight in Maintaining the Common Outward Register:
The appellant argued that discrepancies in the outward register did not prove the transfer of goods between units for further processing. They contended that the register did not show any such entries, and the alleged errors were not relevant to establishing the use of power in Unit No. 1 for manufacturing. The Tribunal acknowledged these arguments but maintained that the outward register did not conclusively disprove the allegations.

5. Burden of Proof in Cases of Clandestine Removal:
Regarding the movement of goods between units, the appellant emphasized that the burden of proving clandestine removal without duty payment lay with the Revenue. They argued that since the Revenue alleged the transfer of goods between units, the onus was on them to prove this claim. The Tribunal noted this argument but ultimately rejected the rectification of mistake application, stating that the order had adequately addressed all relevant points during the appeal hearing.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the rectification of mistake application, emphasizing that the order was detailed, comprehensive, and did not contain any apparent mistakes warranting correction. The decision highlighted the limitations on the Tribunal's power to review and rehear matters already addressed in the appeal, reiterating that mere disagreement with the conclusions did not constitute a mistake on the face of the records.