2018 (10) TMI 625 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of Mistake - applicant submits that there is mistake in the order in as much as the Hon ble Tribunal has not considered the decision cited in the case of the Prayagraj Dying and Printing Mills Pvt.Ltd 2013 (5) TMI 705 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT - also issue on limitation not considered - Held that - The Tribunal Vide order dated 24.11.2017 remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority, no conclusive finding was given by this Tribunal. Therefore, in my view, the issue on merit/facts/limitation was kept open for de-novo adjudication by the adjudicating authority. There is no error, as the matter was not conclusively decided - ROM application dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Rectification of Mistake in Tribunal's Order

Analysis:
The appellant filed an application for Rectification of Mistake in the Tribunal's order dated 15.11.2017. The appellant's counsel argued that the Tribunal failed to consider a specific decision cited in a related case and did not provide a finding on the issue of limitation. It was also contended that the denial of Cenvat Credit by the supplier of inputs should preclude any demand against the appellant, which was allegedly not addressed in the order.

Analysis (contd.):
On the other hand, the Revenue's representative supported the Tribunal's order, stating that all issues raised by the appellant were remanded back to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision. The Deputy Commissioner argued that since the matter was remanded, there was no error in the Tribunal's decision.

Analysis:
After considering the submissions from both sides and reviewing the records, the Member (Judicial) noted that the Tribunal had indeed remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority without providing a conclusive finding. Therefore, the issue of merit, facts, and limitation was left open for fresh adjudication by the authority. Consequently, the Member found no error in the Tribunal's decision as the matter was not conclusively determined.

Outcome:
Concluding the analysis, the Member declared that the Rectification of Mistake application was not maintainable, leading to the dismissal of the appellant's application. The judgment emphasized that since the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication, there was no error in the Tribunal's original order.