9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 470 - AT - Central ExciseRectification of mistake - the imposition of ₹ 2 lakhs as penalty is not warranted, which was imposed by the Order-in-Original No.24/2013 dated 22.3.2013 u/r 25 of the CER, 2002 - Held that - reliance placed in the decision in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTAL EXCISE, BELAPUR, MUMBAI Versus RDC CONCRETE (INDIA) P. LTD. 2011 (8) TMI 25 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , where it was held that a mistake apparent from the record cannot be something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning - ROM application is dismissed as non-maintainable.
Issues:
Rectification of mistake (ROM) application regarding the imposition of penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Analysis: The ROM application was filed by M/s Mittal Pigments Pvt. Ltd. challenging the imposition of a penalty of ?2 lakhs under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The applicant argued that when a penalty under Section 11 AC has been imposed, a penalty under Rule 25 cannot be imposed. They further contended that the demand was related to non-receipt of goods, not improper removal of excisable goods, making Rule 25 inapplicable. The applicant cited precedents to support their position and requested the Tribunal to modify the Final Order to clarify that no penalty under Rule 25 is imposable. They also referred to a specific case as a precedent. On the other hand, the Revenue argued that issuing invoices without delivering goods to evade duty constitutes a violation, making the applicant liable for penalties under Rule 25. They cited a High Court decision to support their argument and emphasized that a debatable legal point in the order does not constitute a mistake apparent on record. They referred to a Supreme Court decision to strengthen their stance. After considering the arguments from both sides, the Tribunal found that there was no mistake apparent from the record in the Final Order. The applicant's contention that the penalty under Rule 25 was unwarranted due to penalties imposed under Section 11 AC was countered by the Revenue's position that Rule 25 penalties were necessary in cases of issuing fake invoices or not issuing invoices at all. The Tribunal highlighted that the ROM application was not an avenue to re-decide the legality of penalties imposed. They cited a larger bench decision to emphasize that rectification of mistake is only for patent mistakes and not for debatable points of law. The Tribunal dismissed the ROM application as nonmaintainable based on legal precedents and the principles outlined by the Supreme Court and the Tribunal's larger bench decision. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, rejecting the ROM application filed by M/s Mittal Pigments Pvt. Ltd. based on the legal principles governing rectification of mistakes and the specific circumstances of the case.
|
