2019 (1) TMI 243 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of mistake - typographical error - apparent on the face of the record - Held that - This rectification application allowed and pursuant to the rectification, the aforementioned final order shall stand modified - ROM application allowed.

Summary

Issues: Rectification of errors in the final order

The judgment pertains to a Rectification of Mistake (ROM) application filed by the applicant/assessee for rectifying errors in the final order dated 7.6.2018. The errors identified by the applicant include inaccuracies in the dates mentioned in the order, deletion of specific paragraphs, and corrections in the content of certain paragraphs. The applicant's counsel highlighted the discrepancies in the final order and requested rectification, which the Departmental Representative did not object to, acknowledging typographical errors apparent on the face of the record.

Analysis:

1. Rectification of Errors in Final Order:
The applicant sought rectification of errors in the final order, specifically related to the incorrect mention of dates and the need to delete certain paragraphs containing inaccuracies. The errors identified were duly acknowledged, and the rectification application was allowed. The modified final order corrected the inaccuracies and discrepancies present in the original order, ensuring the accuracy and clarity of the judgment.

2. Dispute Related to Cenvat Credit on Disputed Goods:
The case involved a dispute regarding the availment of Cenvat credit on disputed goods for the period from March 2011 to September 2013. The Central Excise Department issued a show cause notice denying the Cenvat credit, alleging that certain goods were not eligible for credit as they did not conform to the definition of input or capital goods. The Commissioner confirmed the disallowance of Cenvat demand, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.

3. Nature of Use of Disputed Goods:
During the proceedings, the appellant's consultant provided detailed explanations regarding the nature of use of the disputed goods in the factory premises. The appellant relied on specific judgments of the Tribunal to support their case. The Departmental Representative reiterated the findings of the impugned order, emphasizing that the disputed goods did not meet the criteria for availing Cenvat credit.

4. Decision on Cenvat Credit Eligibility:
The Tribunal examined the submissions made by the appellant and concluded that the disputed goods had been used in the manufacture/production process of various products essential for mining activities. It was noted that these goods were integral to the manufacturing process and did not fall under the excluded category specified in the definition of inputs. As a result, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and extended Cenvat credit to the disputed goods, except for cement, which was deemed to have no direct or indirect role in the final product's manufacture.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the rectification of errors in the final order and resolved the dispute concerning the availment of Cenvat credit on disputed goods, providing detailed analysis and legal reasoning to support the decision rendered by the Tribunal.