2013 (11) TMI 1086 - AT - Central Excise

Modification of Order Error apparent on the face of record Held that - Following Commr.of C.Ex., Belapur, Mumbai Vs RDC Concrete (India) P. Ltd. 2011 (8) TMI 25 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - Mistake in the order for the purpose of rectification should not be established by long drawn process of reasoning and the mistake apparent on record must be an obvious and patent mistake - for seeking modification of stay order, a prima facie case in that behalf is required to be made in the pleadings - No application for review in the garb of prayer for modification can be entertained by the Tribunal - while examining the modification application, the Tribunal should find out whether any change of circumstance after the previous order is shown with sufficient material in that behalf or any other reason prima facie exists warranting modification of previous order on the ground which was not available when the previous order was made. The mistake in stay order is not apparent on the face of record and it would be established by long drawn process of reasoning, which is not permissible under the law - there is no need to look into stay order of other Bench there was no substance in the application for modification of stay order - the application for modification stay order filed by the applicant is not sustainable Decided against Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Modification of stay order for pre-deposit waiver.
2. Consideration of apex court's decision regarding Palm Fatty Acid exemption.
3. Applicability of previous tribunal decisions on the current case.
4. Guidelines for modification of stay order as per Supreme Court and High Court rulings.

Analysis:

1. The appellant sought modification of the stay order requiring a pre-deposit of Rs.1 crore, arguing that the demand on Palm Fatty Acid should not require a deposit due to ongoing considerations by the Board for exemption under Section 11C. They referenced a stay order by the Delhi Bench and a final order by the Mumbai Bench in favor of the assessee, contending that no deposit should be necessary. The appellant emphasized that the stay order was based on a Supreme Court decision not directly relevant to the case and previous tribunal decisions, requesting the waiver of pre-deposit.

2. The respondent opposed the modification, citing the Tribunal's adherence to the Supreme Court decision and guidelines set by the Bombay High Court for stay order modifications. The respondent highlighted the relevance of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Jocil Ltd. and its applicability to the issue at hand. The respondent argued that the mistake in the stay order, if any, was not apparent on record and should not be subject to lengthy reasoning for rectification.

3. Upon examination of the stay order, the Tribunal acknowledged the earlier decision was made without considering the Apex Court's ruling and the specific nature of Palm Fatty Acid. The Tribunal found that the demand related to spent earth was minimal compared to Palm Fatty Acid, indicating the need for a pre-deposit. The Tribunal extended the compliance period for the appellant to adhere to the stay order, emphasizing the importance of following established legal precedents and the specific circumstances of the case.

4. The Tribunal's decision was based on a thorough review of the legal arguments presented by both parties, considering the Supreme Court's stance on rectification and the guidelines outlined by the Bombay High Court for stay order modifications. The Tribunal concluded that the application for modification of the stay order was not sustainable but granted the appellant additional time to comply with the pre-deposit requirement. The judgment was pronounced after due consideration of the submissions made in court, ensuring a fair and reasoned outcome based on legal principles and precedents.