2014 (9) TMI 774 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of Mistake - Valuation of goods - mistakes apparent on record - Held that - At the rectification of mistake stage, we cannot re-appreciate the evidence available on record. As held by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of ACSU Ltd. 2002 (12) TMI 87 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA and RDC Concrete (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2011 (8) TMI 25 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), the mistake apparent on record must be obvious and patent mistake and the mistake should not be such which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning. Re-appreciation of evidence on a debatable point cannot be said to rectification of mistake apparent on record. If the mistake is sought to be rectified by a long drawn process of reasoning or where two opinions are possible, the same cannot be said to be a mistake apparent from the record attracting the provisions of Section 35C of the Central Excise Act, 1994. We have given clear and cogent reasons for coming to the conclusions drawn in the impugned order. If the appellant is aggrieved of the same, the remedy lies in filing an appeal as provided for in the law. - Rectification denied.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of Mistake (ROM) application against final order, reliance on overruled judgments, validity of Larger Bench decision, uniformity of discounts, passing on discounts to consumers, re-appreciation of evidence in ROM application.

Analysis:

1. Overruled Judgment Reliance:
The ROM application challenged the reliance on a judgment overruled by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal rectified the error in the statement but maintained that it did not affect the final conclusion. The Tribunal clarified the conditions for discount deduction based on the Bombay Tyre International case.

2. Validity of Larger Bench Decision:
The appellant claimed that a Larger Bench decision was overruled by the Bombay High Court. However, the Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to review the decision. The Tribunal emphasized that the Larger Bench decision was relevant and pending before the Supreme Court.

3. Uniformity of Discounts:
The ROM application contested the reliance on a case for uniformity of discounts. The Tribunal upheld the decision, stating that discounts were granted arbitrarily without basis. The Tribunal found no infirmity in relying on the case and emphasized the need for strong reasons to allow varying discounts.

4. Passing on Discounts to Consumers:
The appellant argued that discounts were passed on to consumers, but the Tribunal found no evidence supporting this claim. Specific instances were cited where discounts were not passed on, contradicting the appellant's contention.

5. Re-appreciation of Evidence:
The Tribunal emphasized that at the ROM stage, re-appreciating evidence was not permissible. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal stated that mistakes must be obvious and patent, not requiring a lengthy reasoning process. The Tribunal maintained that clear and cogent reasons were provided in the original order.

6. Final Decision:
The Tribunal dismissed the ROM application, except for the rectification specified in para 3.1. The judgment was pronounced on July 31, 2014, emphasizing that the remedy for aggrieved parties lay in filing an appeal as per the law.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the ROM application and the Tribunal's responses, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal judgment.