9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (5) TMI 560 - AT - Central ExciseRectification of mistake - Whether Rule 5 of Hot Re-Rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 would apply to the case where annual capacity of production has been re-determined in terms of Rule 4(2) on the account of change in parameters even though re-determined capacity is less than the annual production for the financial year 1996-97 - Held that - Initially Tribunal vide order dated 9/10/2000 which is wrongly mentioned in the order 18/12/2013 as 9/10/2010 had allowed the parties' appeal - on appeal being filed by the Revenue against the order dated 9/10/2000 of the Tribunal the issue had been decided by the Hon'ble High Court against the assessee and in the favour of the Department following Apex Court's judgment in the case of CCE Chandigarh Vs. Doaba Steel Rolling Mills (2011 (7) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA). Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant has been dismissed. In view of this, last sentence in the order dated 18/12/2013 to that it is made clear that the order of the tribunal passed on 9/10/2010 in the present appeal shall operate is deleted. - Rectification done.
Issues:
Rectification of mistake apparent from records regarding the Tribunal's final order dated 18/12/2013. Analysis: The case involved an application for rectification of mistake apparent from records by the Commissioner of Central Excise-Chandigarh regarding the Tribunal's final order dated 18/12/2013. The dispute revolved around the duty liability of Hot Re-Rolling Steel Mills under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Hot Re-Rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997. The Commissioner sought rectification as the Tribunal's order incorrectly referenced the date of the original order as 9/10/2010 instead of 9/10/2000. Additionally, the Commissioner argued that the last sentence in the first paragraph of the Tribunal's order needed deletion as it did not align with the decision made by the High Court in favor of the Revenue following the Apex Court's judgment in a related case. The Tribunal's initial order dated 9/10/2000 had allowed the parties' appeal, but the Revenue filed an appeal against this decision. The High Court ruled in favor of the Revenue based on the Apex Court's judgment in another case, leading to the dismissal of the appellant's appeal. Consequently, the last sentence in the order dated 18/12/2013 stating that the Tribunal's order from 9/10/2010 shall operate was deemed incorrect and was deleted. The Tribunal modified the order to reflect the correct date and outcome of the case, allowing the rectification of mistake application filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise-Chandigarh. In conclusion, the rectification of the mistake apparent from records in the Tribunal's final order dated 18/12/2013 was granted based on the discrepancies in referencing the date of the original order and the alignment of the Tribunal's decision with the High Court's ruling in favor of the Revenue. The rectification application filed by the Commissioner was allowed, and the Tribunal's order was modified to accurately reflect the case's history and outcome.
|
