2015 (3) TMI 291 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of mistake - Revenue raised a preliminary objection insofar as the application for rectification of mistake of Final Orderwere filed beyond the stipulated period of six months as provided under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that - Sub-section (2) of Section 35C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 provides that the appellate Tribunal may, at any time, within six months from the date of the order, with a view to rectify any mistake apparent on the record, amend any order by it under sub-section (1) and shall make such amendments if the mistake is brought to its notice by the Commissioner of Central Excise or the party. There is no dispute that the present ROM applications were filed beyond six months as provided under Section 35C(2) of the Act. We find that there is no provision for condonation of delay in filing ROM applications under Section 35C(2). Rule 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 provides that the Tribunal may make such orders or give such directions as may be necessary or expedient to give effect or in relation to its orders or to prevent abuse of its process or to secure the ends of justice. Rule 41 of the said Rules, 1982 has not permitted the Tribunal to rectify the mistake in Final Order. The power of the Tribunal under Rule 41 of the said Rules, 1982 is basically to implement the Tribunal s order, to meet the ends of justice, which is not applicable in the present case. - Superintendent of Central Excise by the said letter stated that the interest liability is automatic and the interest is liable to be paid even if the interest is not demanded in the show-cause notice. Thus, the payment of interest has no relation with the impugned order, which would be applicable as per law of the interest provisions. - Rectification denied.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application for clarification of Final Order
2. Application for Rectification of Mistake (ROM) of the Final Order
3. Preliminary objection raised by the Revenue regarding the filing period of ROM applications
4. Interpretation of Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944
5. Application of Rule 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982
6. Cause of action based on the letter from the Superintendent of Central Excise
7. Automatic interest liability as per the letter from the Superintendent of Central Excise

Analysis:

1. The judgment addresses applications for clarification of Final Order and Rectification of Mistake (ROM) of the Final Order. The Advocate for the applicants acknowledged filing applications for clarification previously but now focused on rectification. The Revenue raised a preliminary objection regarding the filing period of the ROM applications, emphasizing they were beyond the stipulated six months under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

2. The Advocate argued that the ROM applications were filed against a letter from the Superintendent of Central Excise demanding interest payment, contending that the limitation period should apply from the date of that communication. Additionally, the Advocate invoked the Tribunal's power under Rule 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, to seek justice and amend the Final Order to exclude interest payment.

3. The Tribunal, after considering both sides, noted that Section 35C(2) does not provide for condonation of delay in filing ROM applications. The Tribunal also analyzed Rule 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, highlighting its scope to implement orders and meet the ends of justice, which was deemed inapplicable in the present case.

4. The judgment further delved into the cause of action stemming from the Superintendent of Central Excise's letter, emphasizing the automatic nature of interest liability as per the letter's contents. The Tribunal concluded by rejecting all ROM applications and dismissing miscellaneous applications not pressed, based on the discussions and legal interpretations presented during the proceedings.