2019 (2) TMI 1358 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of Mistake - apparent error existed or not? - Revenue submitted that since the Ld Counsel has taken so much time for arguing the instant application this itself shows that there is no apparent mistake in the order - Held that - There is no mistake in the order which required to be rectified and whatever has been argued at the time of passing the Final Order, has been recorded and considered therein and the submissions made in this application do not fall within the ambit of rectification of mistake - ROM application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of mistakes in the order dated 04/07/2018 passed by the Tribunal in Appeal No. 51231/2018-SM.

Analysis:
The appellant filed an application seeking rectification of mistakes in the Tribunal's order. The main grievance was related to a specific paragraph in the order, which discussed the retrospective applicability of an explanation inserted via Notification No. 3/2011. The appellant argued that the proceedings initiated under Rule 14 of the Credit Rules were unsustainable without invoking Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant cited a decision by the Excise Division Bench of the Tribunal in a similar case, emphasizing the binding nature of decisions by superior courts. The appellant contended that the Tribunal failed to consider the detailed submissions and case law presented during the hearing, which constituted an error apparent on the record. The appellant referenced established legal principles and precedents to support the argument that non-consideration of a binding precedent would amount to an error. The Tribunal noted the arguments presented by both parties, with the appellant spending considerable time establishing the alleged mistakes in the order. The Revenue's representative suggested that the extensive argumentation by the appellant indicated the absence of any apparent mistake in the order. After a thorough review of the order and the appellant's application, the Tribunal concluded that there was no mistake requiring rectification. The Tribunal determined that the arguments made during the hearing were duly recorded and considered in the final order, and the submissions in the rectification application did not warrant rectification. Consequently, the application was dismissed for lack of merit.

This comprehensive analysis of the issues involved in the judgment provides a detailed understanding of the legal proceedings and the Tribunal's decision regarding the rectification of mistakes in the order.