2020 (3) TMI 640 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of mistake - error apparent on the face of record - ascertainment of quantum of reversible cenvat credit - HELD THAT - The issue adjudicated by the impugned appeal was the appellant, who was involved not only in the manufacture of the aerated water but also in trading thereof, whether was entitled to avail the Cenvat credit as far as the element of trading was concerned. From paras 9 and 10 thereof, it is observed that the findings in the order are in favour of the assessee/present applicant holding him to be entitled to avail the Cenvat credit - the allegation of Department, in fact, becomes redundant as far as the order of reversal of the said Cenvat credit is concerned. In view of these observations the remanding of the matter for ascertaining the quantum of reversible Cenvat credit is definitely an inadvertent error, which is apparent on the face of record of this order. No question of the ground taken in the application to be a debatable issue or present case to be a case amounting to the review of the impugned final order at all arises - Application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of mistake in the final order regarding the entitlement to avail Cenvat credit for trading activities.

Analysis:
The appellant sought rectification of a mistake in the final order where despite findings in their favor regarding the eligibility to avail Cenvat credit for trading activities, the matter was remanded back to ascertain the quantum of reversible Cenvat credit. The appellant argued that once entitled to the credit, there should be no reversal or need to ascertain the quantum. The error was deemed apparent on the record, justifying rectification.

Analysis:
The Department opposed the rectification, citing Tribunal findings that rectification does not cover cases intended for revision or review. They also referred to a decision stating that decisions on debatable legal points or disputed facts do not constitute apparent mistakes. The Department requested the application to be dismissed based on these arguments.

Analysis:
After considering both parties' arguments and reviewing the final order and rectification application, the judge noted that the issue in question was whether the appellant, engaged in manufacturing and trading aerated water, was entitled to Cenvat credit for trading activities. The findings in paras 9 and 10 favored the appellant, establishing their entitlement to the credit. Therefore, remanding the matter to ascertain the reversible credit quantum was deemed an inadvertent error apparent on the face of the record.

Analysis:
The judge found the Department's cited case law inapplicable to the present situation, as the observations in the final order supported the appellant's entitlement to the credit. The judge highlighted that the order had already discussed the issue in detail, making the remand for credit quantification contradictory. Therefore, the rectification was allowed to align the final order with the favorable findings for the appellant.