2018 (9) TMI 1651 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of Mistake - case of applicant is that the benefit of DTA sale and Notification No. 23/2003-CE has been denied on the ground that the LOP mentioned these two by-products and there is no necessity for demarcation of by-products and that by such demarcation, the obligation case on the appellant could not be waived as these are not waste and scrap. That such finding is contradictory in nature - Held that - An application for rectification is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an appeal can be reheard or decided. The ROM application is only for mistake which are patent. An error apparent on face of record means an error which is apparent on mere looking and does not require long drawn process of reasoning of points where there may be conceivable two opinions. Such error should not require any extraneous matter to show its incorrectness. The contentions put forward are not errors apparent on face of record which requires rectification - ROM Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Rectification of mistake in Final Order regarding duty liability on neem oil and neem cake obtained from neem kernel.

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI, the main issue involved was the duty liability on neem oil and neem cake obtained from neem kernel. The appellant sought rectification of a mistake in the Final Order dated 14.11.2017, where the Tribunal had dismissed the appeal observing that the duty liability would sustain. The appellant argued that neem cake and neem oil are by-products in the course of manufacture and neemazal formula, not waste or scrap. The appellant emphasized that the categorization of neem oil and neem cake as by-products is crucial under ITC Policy para 6.8(g) for claiming DTA sale facility without the need for exporting the same product. The appellant contended that the Final Order had overlooked relevant provisions in the Handbook of Procedure and ITC policy, leading to an erroneous finding that the same conditions as finished goods should apply to by-products for DTA sale. Additionally, the appellant challenged the denial of benefits under Notification No. 23/2003-CE, arguing that the obligation case on the appellant could not be waived as neem cake and neem oil were not waste or scrap.

The respondent, represented by the ld. AR, opposed the rectification of mistake application, stating that the contentions raised by the appellant were arguments on the merits of the case that should be considered during an appeal, not in a rectification application. The respondent argued that there were no errors apparent on the face of the record requiring rectification.

After hearing both sides, the Tribunal concluded that the contentions raised by the appellant were not errors apparent on the face of the record that could be rectified. The Tribunal clarified that a rectification application is not a disguised appeal and should only address mistakes that are patent and do not require a lengthy process of reasoning or argument. Since the contentions raised by the appellant required a detailed argument and touched upon the merits of the case, the Tribunal found no merit in the rectification applications and dismissed them, stating that the impugned order did not warrant any interference.