Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 1102 - AT - Central ExciseIssues Involved: 1. Whether the applications for Rectification of Mistakes in the interim order dated 06.06.2023 are maintainable. 2. Examination of the specific mistakes pointed out by the department in the interim order. Detailed Analysis: 1. Maintainability of the Applications for Rectification of Mistakes: The primary issue was whether the applications for rectification of mistakes in the interim order dated 06.06.2023, passed by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal, are maintainable under section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal examined the provisions of section 35C, which allows the Tribunal to rectify any mistake apparent from the record by amending any order passed under section 35C(1). However, it was contended that the interim order does not constitute a final order as contemplated under section 35C(1). The Tribunal referred to previous decisions, including the Larger Bench decision in Collector of Central Excise, Meerut vs. Lal Chand Anand and Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai vs. Hico Enterprises, which established that only final orders disposing of appeals fall within the ambit of section 35C(1). The Tribunal concluded that the interim order answering the reference does not finally dispose of the appeal and thus, applications for rectification of mistakes in such an order are not maintainable. 2. Examination of Specific Mistakes Pointed Out by the Department: Although the applications were deemed not maintainable, the Tribunal noted the specific mistakes raised by the department: (i) Dictionary Meaning vs. Legislative Context: The department argued that the interim order failed to consider the Supreme Court's decision in Collector of C.E., Kanpur vs. Krishna Carbon Paper Co regarding the limitation of applying dictionary meanings to statutory terms. The Tribunal noted that the dictionary meaning is relevant when uniformly defined and not defined in the statute, referencing CIT vs. Venkateswara Hatcheries (P) Ltd. (ii) Common Parlance vs. Trade Parlance: The department contended that the term 'automobile' should be understood in trade parlance rather than common parlance. The Tribunal clarified that 'automobile' is a term of ordinary usage, and the issue referred was whether the expression in the Acts can be adopted or the common parlance meaning should be used. (iii) Source of Definitions: The department pointed out the lack of sources for the definitions of 'automobile' in the interim order. The Tribunal responded that various dictionaries uniformly define 'automobile' and referenced Black's Law Dictionary. (iv) Relevance of Circulars: The department argued that certain Circulars were irrelevant to the issues referred to the Larger Bench. The Tribunal maintained that these Circulars represent the understanding of the Board and provide direction on the term 'automobile'. (v) BIS Standard: The department claimed that the BIS Standard for 'automotive vehicles' should be considered equivalent to 'automobiles'. The Tribunal disagreed, stating that the BIS Standard cannot be equated with the term 'automobiles'. (vi) Parts and Components: The department failed to establish that the parts referred to in the show cause notice are common to all automotive vehicles. The Tribunal noted the absence of such an allegation in the show cause notice. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the applications for rectification of mistakes in the interim order dated 06.06.2023 are not maintainable as they do not fall within the scope of section 35C(1) of the Central Excise Act. Consequently, the Tribunal did not need to address whether the alleged mistakes constituted a review of the order or required rectification. The five applications filed for rectification of mistakes were accordingly rejected.
|