2016 (11) TMI 425 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of mistake - demand of duty based upon provisional determination of duty in 1997 - Held that - We find that the application filed by the applicant-appellant for rectification of mistake is mis-construed and liable to be rejected on the face of it. It is seen from the application made by the applicant-appellant that there is an error on the face of the record is seeking to reargue entire case on merits which is not the purpose of an application for rectification of mistake. Be that as it may, we find that the entire issue involved in this case is regarding the demand of differential duty based upon the definitive determination of annual capacity of production of the plant of the applicant-appellant. In the entire application the appellant has not disputed the fact that annual capacity of production was finally determined by the Jurisdictional Commissioner in March 20000. If that be so, in our view the hyper technical points raised as to the show-cause notice proceed on the demand of duty based upon provisional determination of duty in 1997 are irrelevant, as if the final determination has not been challenged before the higher judicial forum, it is bounden duty of the applicant-appellant to discharge the duty liability in accordance with law.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Rectification of mistake in the order dated 31.12.2015 regarding the demand of differential duty based on the definitive determination of annual production capacity.
2. Dispute over the issuance of show-cause notices and duty liability based on the Commissioner's determination in March 2000.

Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: The applicant filed an application for Rectification of Mistake seeking correction in the order dated 31.12.2015, which allegedly misinterpreted the issue of differential duty based on the annual production capacity determination. The applicant argued that the Tribunal incorrectly framed the issue as the show-cause notices were not issued based on the final determination of production capacity by the Commissioner in March 2000. The applicant contended that the Tribunal's findings were erroneous as the show-cause notices were not linked to the final determination in March 2000. Despite referencing the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in a similar case and presenting elaborate arguments, the Tribunal did not address the principal contention that collateral proceedings cannot be held against the applicant. The applicant emphasized that the duty liability should be based on actual products under Section 3 A(4) of the Central Excise Act/1944, and the proceedings were initiated based on a provisional determination of production capacity in 1997, not the final determination in March 2000.

Issue 2: The Departmental Representative supported the Tribunal's order, arguing against the rectification of mistake sought by the applicant. Upon careful consideration of both parties' submissions, the Tribunal found that the rectification application was misconstrued and should be rejected. The Tribunal noted that the core issue revolved around the demand for differential duty based on the definitive determination of annual production capacity. It was observed that the applicant did not dispute the final determination of annual production capacity made by the Commissioner in March 2000. Therefore, the technical arguments raised regarding the show-cause notices issued based on the provisional determination in 1997 were deemed irrelevant. The Tribunal emphasized that if the final determination of production capacity had not been challenged before a higher judicial forum, it was the duty of the applicant to discharge the duty liability as per the law. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that there was no apparent error on the face of the record that warranted rectification in the order dated 31.12.2015.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the application for Rectification of Mistake, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the duty liability based on the final determination of annual production capacity as determined by the Commissioner. The judgment highlights the significance of complying with legal obligations and addressing issues based on the established determinations rather than challenging procedural aspects unrelated to the core issue of duty liability.