2019 (1) TMI 662 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of mistake - case of appellant is that they averred that the impugned order had exceeded the proposal in the show cause notice to decide on classification and that this submission had not been dealt with by the Tribunal - Held that - It would appear that the Tribunal in its order upheld the demand as computed by the two lower authorities in the absence of any justification on the part of the appellant that there should be a contrary finding. The question of having exceeded the jurisdiction in re-classifying the goods, which the first appellate authority is alleged to have done, does not alter the confirmation of demand of duty which is the prime purpose of the adjudication proceedings. The Tribunal has, in its order, arrived at its own conclusion on the classifiability of the goods which, in effect, upheld the order of the original authority and also the latter order of the first appellate authority. Therefore there is no scope for rectification of the order of the Tribunal. ROM Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Rectification of mistake in the order regarding classification of goods and imposition of penalty.

Classification of Goods Issue:
The case involved an application by M/s Saertex India Pvt Ltd seeking rectification of an order dated 31st January 2018, which classified the disputed goods, 'trimmings and end-cuts' of 'stitched bonded fabrics of glass,' as 'waste and scrap' under heading no. 7001 0090 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The applicant contended that the impugned order exceeded the proposal in the show cause notice and that the submission made during the hearing was not addressed by the Tribunal. It was also argued that the imposition of penalty lacked proper justification.

Analysis of Classification Issue:
The Tribunal found that in the orders under dispute, the classification of goods had been decided upon, upholding the original authority's decision. While the first appellate authority had classified the goods differently in another order, it still confirmed the demand of duty and penalty. The Tribunal noted that it upheld the demand as computed by the lower authorities due to the absence of any justification by the appellant for a contrary finding. The issue of re-classifying the goods by the first appellate authority did not impact the confirmation of the duty demand, which was the primary focus of the proceedings. As the demand was upheld, the final classification was deemed irrelevant. The Tribunal concluded that there was no basis for rectifying its order, as it had supported the decisions of the original authority and the first appellate authority.

Imposition of Penalty Issue:
The applicant also raised concerns regarding the imposition of penalty without a proper disposition of the grounds for invoking penal provisions. However, the Tribunal's decision focused on the confirmation of the duty demand, and the question of penalty imposition was not addressed separately.

Final Decision:
The Tribunal dismissed the application for rectification on 20th December 2018, emphasizing that the classification issue did not warrant rectification as the demand of duty had been upheld, making the classification determination immaterial. The decision highlighted the Tribunal's role in confirming the lower authorities' decisions in the absence of justifiable reasons for a contrary finding.