2018 (8) TMI 684 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of Mistake - case of applicant is that since the Tribunal has not considered the instruction/circular issued by the CBEC in respect of the litigation policy and allowed the appeal of the Revenue on merits, the order dated 17.11.2017 should be recalled and should be decided in terms of the litigation policy issued by the CBEC - Held that - Since the entire order was dictated in presence of both the sides, it cannot be said that some of the arguments placed by the respondent therein was not considered by the Tribunal - Further, on perusal of the instructions dated 17.12.2015 by the CBEC, it is found that vide paragraph 2 therein, it has been clarified that the monetary limit of ₹ 10 lakhs would not to be considered in case of refund issue and of recurring in nature. Both sides agree that on identical set of facts, proceedings have already been initiated by the department in rejecting the refund application filed by the applicant for earlier period. ROM application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of mistake in the order dated 17.11.2017 passed by the Tribunal regarding the Revenue's appeal based on monetary limit and litigation policy.

Analysis:
The applicant filed a miscellaneous application seeking rectification of a mistake in the Tribunal's order dated 17.11.2017, arguing that the Revenue's appeal should not proceed due to the monetary limit set by the CBEC's instructions dated 17.12.2015. The applicant contended that since the amount in dispute was less than ?10 lakhs, it fell under the litigation policy. The Tribunal was urged to recall the order and decide in line with the CBEC's litigation policy. Upon reviewing the order, it was noted that both Revenue and the assessee were present during the proceedings, and the order was pronounced in their presence. The Tribunal found that all arguments were considered during the hearing. Additionally, the CBEC's instructions clarified that the monetary limit of ?10 lakhs did not apply to refund issues or those of a recurring nature. As the issue at hand was recurring, the monetary limit specified in the circular could not be used to reject the Revenue's appeal.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that there were no merits in the applicant's miscellaneous application and dismissed it. The decision was based on the understanding that the issue fell under the category of recurring nature, exempting it from the monetary limit set by the CBEC's circular. The order was dictated in court, finalizing the Tribunal's decision on the matter.