2022 (12) TMI 464 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of mistake - error apparent on the face of record or not - Denial of Cenvat Credit - ineligible documents - period of June, 2002 to March, 2004 - HELD THAT - If few capital goods have not been specifically mentioned in the order such as G.I. wires and Galvanized Sheets, Valve Grinding Compounds, plastic sheet, sealant tape, fabric laminated sheet, rubber sheets, clutch plates etc. for packing and insulation purpose, pump Spares (for water treatment), Vanadium Pentaxide, Platinum Catalyst and Copper Oxide, Sodium Nitrate/ Hydrazine Hydrate (water treatment chemicals) Paint Thinner, Varnish, but since none of them have been denied to be used by the appellant in the manufacturing process, the findings in impugned Final Order equally applies to those goods also. There is no error apparent on the face of the Final Order. Accordingly, we reiterate that the impugned Final Order hold appellant entitled for availing entire amount of Cenvat Credit as was denied on the ground of ineligible inputs/capital goods. Necessary rectification of para 16 18 of the Final Order as prayed to be rectified to be incorporated in the Final Order - application for ROM allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of mistake in two separate appeals regarding denial of Cenvat Credit based on ineligible documents.

Analysis:
1. The department filed applications for rectification of mistakes in two appeals where Cenvat Credit was denied due to ineligible documents. The Final Order remanded the matter back for detailed adjudication. However, discrepancies were noted in the Final Order regarding the denial amounts of Cenvat Credit in the appeals.

2. The department argued that the Final Order did not discuss all items used by the respondent's factory for Cenvat Credit eligibility, leading to errors. The alleged omissions were considered as apparent errors on the record, requesting the Final Order to be recalled and the applications to be allowed.

3. The appellant's counsel rebutted, mentioning that multiple Show Cause Notices were adjudicated in two Order in Originals. The Final Order meticulously covered all products, allowing Cenvat Credit for items directly or indirectly used in the manufacturing process, even if some were not specifically mentioned.

4. The Tribunal observed that Show Cause Notices were issued denying Cenvat Credit eligibility based on ineligible inputs and inadmissible documents. The Orders in Original were confirmed by the Tribunal in the Final Order.

5. The Final Order set aside the adjudicating authority's opinion on capital goods' eligibility for Cenvat Credit, holding the appellant entitled to credit for all such goods used in the manufacturing process.

6. The Tribunal noted that certain capital goods were not explicitly mentioned in the Final Order but held that since their use was not denied, they were covered under the discussion, with no challenge from the Department.

7. The Final Order remanded specific amounts of denied Cenvat Credit for verification of documents, but a typographical error was found in the order regarding the amounts. The Tribunal allowed rectification of the error in the Final Order, specifying the correct amounts for re-adjudication.

8. The Final Order rectifications were incorporated to clarify the Cenvat Credit entitlement and the remand for re-adjudication based on inadmissible documents. The applications for rectification were partly allowed by the Tribunal.