9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (2) TMI 664 - AT - Service TaxRectification of mistake (ROM) u/s 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Penalty under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001 - Held that - Held that - Tribunal find that in the present case the points raised in the ROM application were not urged by the applicant at the time of hearing of the application and in their written submissions submitted on the date of hearing. The issue relating to the Rectification of Mistake under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was examined by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur, Mumbai v. RDC Concrete (India) Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2011 (8) TMI 25 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA and observed that a mistake apparent on record must be an obvious and patent mistake and the mistake should not be such which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning - Following decision of RASHTRIYA CHEMICALS & FERTILIZERS LTD. Versus C. C. E. & S. T., LTU, MUMBAI 2013 (3) TMI 478 - CESTAT MUMBAI - Decided against assessee.
Issues: Rectification of mistake in final order regarding duty payment through CENVAT account and penalty waiver.
Rectification of Mistake in Final Order: The applicant sought rectification of a mistake in Final Order No. 925/2012 dated 12.9.2012. The applicant claimed relief for setting aside the impugned order, including demand of duty and penalty. The applicant argued that payment through the CENVAT account is sufficient for discharging the duty liability as per Rule 8(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The applicant relied on a Tribunal decision in the case of Solar Chemferts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE. However, the Tribunal did not consider this aspect in the final order. The Tribunal noted that the applicant did not raise the issue of payment of duty from the CENVAT account during the relevant period. Citing the decision in the case of Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. CCE, the Tribunal held that an issue not raised during the argument cannot be considered a mistake in the order. Consequently, the Tribunal found no error in the final order and rejected the application for rectification. Penalty Waiver Issue: The Tribunal reviewed the penalties sought to be set aside by the applicant. The applicants requested the waiver of a penalty imposed under Section 11AC read with Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, amounting to Rs.25,000, confirmed by lower authorities. After considering submissions from both sides, the Tribunal waived the penalty under Rule 25 but confirmed the penalty under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001. The Tribunal disposed of the appeal accordingly. The respondent argued that the applicant had sought setting aside of penalties during the Tribunal proceedings, and the Tribunal's order was justified. The Tribunal's decision was based on a balanced consideration of the penalty provisions and the arguments presented. The Tribunal's approach was consistent with its previous decision in the case of Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. CCE. The Tribunal's decision was upheld, and the application for rectification was rejected. In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment addressed the issues of rectification of mistake in final order regarding duty payment through the CENVAT account and penalty waiver. The Tribunal found no error in its final order, as the applicant did not raise the duty payment issue during the relevant proceedings. Additionally, the Tribunal's decision on penalty waiver was based on a thorough consideration of the arguments presented by both parties and was in line with previous decisions. The application for rectification was consequently rejected.
|
