2001 (11) TMI 843 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of Final Order regarding demand of duty on captively consumed goods by 100% EOU.

Analysis:
The appellants sought rectification of the Final Order dismissing their appeal against the demand of duty on goods captively consumed by them. The appellants contended that the Tribunal erred in confirming the duty demand as they were a 100% EOU, covered by Rule 100A(2) rather than Rules 9 and 49 of the Central Excise Rules. The learned Counsel argued that the Tribunal overlooked this provision, leading to a mistake in maintaining the duty demand. On the contrary, the Respondent argued that the previous ROM on the same grounds had been dismissed, and there was no apparent mistake in the order. The Respondent cited legal precedent to support their contention.

The Tribunal noted that a previous ROM by the appellants on the same grounds had been dismissed after detailed consideration. The Tribunal held that the second ROM was not maintainable based on the principle that the same grounds had already been addressed and rejected in the earlier ROM. The Tribunal referred to precedents indicating that a second ROM against the same order is not permissible. The appellants' argument that the mistake pointed out in the earlier ROM persisted was not accepted, and detailed reasons for dismissal were provided. Therefore, the second ROM seeking rectification on the same grounds was deemed not maintainable.

Furthermore, on the merits of the case, the Tribunal found that the appellants' argument that they were not liable to pay duty on captively consumed goods as a 100% EOU had been thoroughly discussed in the impugned order. The Tribunal concluded that duty was payable even for goods removed for captive consumption. The mere absence of specific rule references in the order did not imply that the plea was not considered. Even if the appellants' plea was assumed to be wrongly rejected, the Tribunal held that rectification could not be entertained if the issue was debatable. Citing legal precedent, the Tribunal emphasized that rectification is not permissible for debatable questions or unexamined points in fact or law. The appellants' request for rehearing and rewriting of the final order through the ROM was deemed impermissible under the law.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found no merit in the ROM application and ordered its dismissal based on the above discussions.