2000 (10) TMI 616 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of mistake in Tribunal final order regarding Modvat credit and interpretation of judicial precedents.

Analysis:
The applications filed sought rectification of a mistake in the Tribunal's final order regarding Modvat credit and the interpretation of judicial precedents. The Appellants argued that the Tribunal wrongly rejected their appeals without extending the benefit of Modvat credit on duty paid inputs. They cited judicial precedents such as the case of M/s. J.K. Cotton Spg. & Wvg. Mills and emphasized the importance of considering such precedents. The Appellants also highlighted the case of Laxmi Tobacco Co. v. CCE, Raipur, to support their argument that non-consideration of judicial precedents would amount to an error on the face of the record. Additionally, they referenced the case of West Coast Industrial Gases Ltd. v. CCE Cochin to strengthen their position. The Appellants contended that the Tribunal misinterpreted the decision in the case of M/s. V.B.C. Industries Ltd. v. CCE, leading to the rejection of their appeals.

The Respondent, represented by the learned D.R., acknowledged that the Appellants' claim for Modvat credit could be considered by the Tribunal. However, regarding the plea of non-consideration of the J.K. Spg. & Wvg. Mills case, the Respondent argued that the decision was presented after the hearing, which could not be taken into account as it would violate the principle of natural justice. The Respondent maintained that the Tribunal's interpretation and decision cannot be a ground for rectification of mistake.

Upon considering the submissions, the Tribunal found that the issue of Modvat credit was not before them while deciding the appeals. The Tribunal noted that the final order did not decide against the admissibility of Modvat credit, but rather held the Appellants liable to pay duty, which would be adjusted against the available Modvat credit. The Tribunal emphasized that the decision of the Supreme Court was not cited during the hearing, and therefore, it was not bound to consider it. Citing the case of Dokka Samuel v. Dr. Jacob Lazarus Chelly, the Tribunal clarified that the omission to cite an authority does not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record. The Tribunal referenced the case of Dinker Khindria v. CCE, New Delhi, stating that rectification of mistake does not encompass rectifying an alleged error of judgment. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the applications for rectification, concluding that there was no error apparent on the record of the final order.