9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (10) TMI 678 - AT - Central ExciseRectification of Mistake - error apparent on the face of record - HELD THAT - The impugned order which we have affirmed in the final order dated 05.03.2024 have decided the issue on merits against the appellant, however, on limitation, the issue has been held to be against the revenue and, therefore, the demand of duty stood confirmed to the period from Jan. 2017 to June, 2017. In the circumstances, the present application for rectification of mistake is nothing but another attempt by the appellant to re-open the appeal to somehow evade the duty demand. The same is not permissible. There are no merits in the Rectification of Mistake application, which is hereby rejected.
Issues:
Rectification of Mistake in Final Order Analysis: The appellant filed an application for Rectification of Mistake in the Final Order, claiming that their submissions were not considered, leading to an error on record. The appellant argued that the disputed raw material was purchased outside the period for which demand was raised, and the order failed to consider crucial facts. However, the Tribunal noted that these submissions were not raised before the Adjudicating Authority and were beyond the scope of the appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal found no error in the final order. The primary contention of the appellant was regarding the nature of the waste used in manufacturing 'Popcorn'. The Adjudicating Authority concluded that 'Popcorn' did not qualify as plastic waste, thus denying the benefit of a notification. Additionally, the Authority found that the appellant used various types of waste, including yarn waste, which did not align with the exemption notification criteria. The Tribunal upheld these findings, emphasizing that the appellant's use of textile waste was not in line with the specified inputs for the exemption. Regarding the appellant's claim of not purchasing the alleged textile waste during the specific period, the Tribunal found it unsustainable. The appellant had admitted to procuring yarn and textile waste from July 2014 to June 2017, contradicting their argument. The Tribunal clarified that there is no strict correlation between procurement and manufacturing in a particular period, reinforcing the findings against the appellant. The Tribunal dismissed the application for Rectification of Mistake, stating that it was an attempt to evade duty demand. The second contention raised by the appellant, concerning the period of central excise duty calculation, was also rejected as lacking substance. The Tribunal upheld the original order, deciding against the appellant on the issue of merits while ruling in favor of the revenue on the matter of limitation. In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the Rectification of Mistake application, affirming the original order's findings against the appellant. The judgment emphasized the importance of raising all relevant grounds before the Adjudicating Authority and adhering to the specified inputs for exemption notifications to avoid duty liabilities.
|
