2014 (8) TMI 574 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of mistake - Non consideration of relied upon case law - Held that - In the said case the question for consideration was whether detention of plant and machinery under Rule 230 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 would also prohibit the manufacturing activity of the manufacture. The Hon ble High Court held that detention of machinery is for prohibiting the transfer and disposal otherwise of the said goods and not for stopping production in the factory. The said decision has no relevance to the admissibility of appeal in the context of the proceedings under Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Thus, the application for rectification of mistake is completely devoid of merits - Decision in the case of Ram Shree Steels (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner 2000 (1) TMI 51 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD distinguished - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues: Appealability of recovery proceedings under Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 before the Commissioner (Appeals); Rectification of Mistake application based on the consideration of a previous judgment by the Tribunal.

In the judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI, the issue revolved around the appeal filed by the Revenue challenging the jurisdiction of the Commissioner (Appeals) in dealing with recovery proceedings under Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing that such recovery proceedings are not appealable before the Commissioner (Appeals), rendering the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) as without jurisdiction and bad in law. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Regarding the Rectification of Mistake application filed by the respondent, M/s Dujodwala Products Ltd. (now known as Mangalam Organics Ltd.), the Tribunal addressed the contention that it failed to consider a previous judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Ram Shree Steels (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner. The Tribunal clarified that during the initial order, no representation was made by the respondent, and thus, the argument of not considering the said judgment was unfounded. The Tribunal examined the relevance of the Ram Shree Steels (P) Ltd. case, highlighting that it pertained to the detention of machinery under Rule 230 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and its impact on manufacturing activities, which was distinct from the issue of appeal admissibility under Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Rectification of Mistake application, deeming it meritless and lacking in substance.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment clarified the appealability of recovery proceedings under Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 before the Commissioner (Appeals) and addressed the Rectification of Mistake application based on the alleged omission of considering a previous judgment, ultimately upholding its initial decision and dismissing the application.