2017 (6) TMI 937 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of mistake - relevant date of order - Held that - We have gone through Para 3 of the said Final Order bearing A/172/2004 passed on 24/02/2004, from which it is clear that for the period from 01/04/1994 to 24/04/1994 the appellant had paid Central Excise duty of ₹ 6,54,567/- and as per the condition of said N/N. 1/93-CE dated 28/02/1993, first clearance of ₹ 30,00,000/-was over on 16/06/1994 in the Financial Year 1994-95 and with the Notification of exemption to the commodity on 25/04/1994 the appellant had paid Central Excise duty of ₹ 11,67,010/- for the period from 25/04/1994 to 06/06/1994 and the same was deducted from the duty payable and therefore we do not find any mistake in the said order - application for ROM rejected - decided against applicant.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of mistake application regarding duty liability calculation and cash refund rejection.

Analysis:
The case involved a Miscellaneous Application for rectification of mistake filed by the appellant. The application sought rectification of the Tribunal's Final Order regarding duty liability calculation for a specific period. The appellant argued that there was a mistake in the calculation of duty liability for the period from 01/04/1994 to 18/10/1994. The High Court of Allahabad had set aside the Tribunal's earlier decision and remanded the matter back for a fresh order. The Tribunal examined the appellant's claim and found that there was no mistake in the original order. The appellant had paid Central Excise duty as per the conditions of the relevant notifications, and there was no provision for retrospective application of the exemption notification. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the appellant's request for rectification on duty liability calculation.

Regarding the second issue of cash refund rejection, the appellant had requested a cash refund of a specific amount, which was earlier ordered by the Commissioner as a re-credit. The Tribunal had already considered and rejected this issue in the earlier Final Order. The appellant failed to provide any new reasons or evidence to revisit this issue. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the appellant's request for rectification of the cash refund rejection. The Tribunal appreciated the assistance provided by the Advocate acting as Amicus Curiae in the case. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected both prayers for rectification of mistake and dismissed the application accordingly.

In conclusion, the Tribunal carefully analyzed the appellant's claims regarding duty liability calculation and cash refund rejection. After thorough examination, the Tribunal found no errors in the original Final Order and rejected the appellant's requests for rectification. The case highlights the importance of adherence to legal provisions and notifications in matters of duty liability calculation and refund claims.