2016 (11) TMI 820 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of mistake - there was no specific demand for interest in the adjudicating orders and it was raised only in the appellate stage - Held that - reliance placed on the decision of the case of CCE, Belarpur, Mumbai Vs. RDC Concrete (India) P.Ltd 2011 (8) TMI 25 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA wherein it is detailed out as to when a rectification of mistake can be undertaken - it is held in the case that CESTAT should not exceed its powers and to re-appreciate the evidence, while exercising its powers u/s 35C(2) of the Act, and, therefore, the impugned order passed in pursuance of the rectification application is bad in law and, therefore, the said order is hereby quashed and set aside - following the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of RDC Concrete (India) P. Ltd., I am of the view that the applicant is seeking reconsideration of the case which would tantamount to reopening and rehearing the matter in full which is impermissible and thus the ROM Petition is rejected.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of mistake petition against Final Order, demand of interest in show cause notice, demand of interest at appellate stage, consideration of facts and case laws in final order.

Analysis:
The rectification of mistake petition challenged the Final Order passed by the Tribunal, alleging failure to appreciate the absence of a specific demand for interest in the adjudicating orders, with interest being raised only at the appellate stage. The applicant contended that demand of interest at the appellate stage was time-barred. The Tribunal examined the records and submissions, noting the applicant's main grievance regarding the absence of a specific demand for interest in the initial orders. The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in a relevant case to determine the scope of rectification of mistake, emphasizing that a mistake apparent from the record should be obvious and patent, not arising from a debatable point of law. The Tribunal highlighted that re-appreciation of evidence on a debatable point does not constitute rectification of a mistake apparent on record.

The applicant relied on a Tribunal order upheld by the Gujarat High Court, but the Tribunal found it distinguishable as the cited case involved a belated demand for interest. Citing the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant's request for reconsideration would amount to impermissible reopening and rehearing of the matter in full. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the Rectification of Mistake (ROM) Petition.

The Tribunal's decision was based on the principle that rectification of mistake should address obvious and patent errors, not debatable legal points. The Tribunal emphasized that re-evaluating evidence on debatable points does not qualify as rectification of a mistake apparent on record. By applying legal precedents and the principles established by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Tribunal upheld the rejection of the ROM Petition, ensuring that the matter was not reopened for full reconsideration.