2017 (5) TMI 389 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of mistake - the case of the applicant was listed for hearing on 13.01.2017, in the supplementary cause list, along with the case of Unipearl Alloys and others, the Tribunal disposed of all the connected appeals by a composite order, but the name of the appellant/ applicant was not mentioned in the said order - Held that - On perusal of the cause list dated 13.01.2017, it is found that the name of the applicant/ appellant appears at serial No. 39 of the said cause list and the same was listed along with the appeal of M/s. Unipearl Alloys & Others - in the the final order, inadvertently, the order in the case of the applicant/appellant has not been passed - ROM application allowed - decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Rectification of mistake in the final order regarding the appellant's case; Denial of Cenvat Credit on input goods procured from a registered dealer.

Rectification of Mistake Issue Analysis:
The applicant filed for rectification of mistake as their case was not mentioned in the final order despite being listed for hearing. The Tribunal acknowledged the error and allowed the rectification application, passing an order in the applicant's case. The cause list and final order were reviewed to confirm the oversight, leading to the decision in favor of rectification.

Denial of Cenvat Credit Issue Analysis:
The case involved the denial of Cenvat Credit on input goods procured by the appellants from a registered dealer who was later alleged to be non-existent. The appellants argued that they had received the goods and utilized them in their manufacturing process, emphasizing that payment was made through legitimate means. They contended that since no investigation was conducted at their end or at the manufacturer's end, the denial of Cenvat Credit was unjustified. The Revenue supported the lower authorities' decision. However, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, highlighting the lack of substantial investigation and cross-examination of the registered dealer. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, allowing the appeals and providing consequential relief.

This judgment addressed the rectification of a mistake in the final order and the issue of denying Cenvat Credit to the appellants. It emphasized the importance of thorough investigation and due process in cases involving the denial of credits, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellants due to insufficient evidence and procedural shortcomings.