MARUTI UDYOG LTD. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application by M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. for rectification of mistake in Tribunal's Final Order No. 332 -333/2002 -B dated 12.8.2002.

(2.) Shri V. Sridharan, learned Advocate, submitted that a point was raised before the Appellate Tribunal that in respect of the vehicles which have been brought back to the factory for repair and re -exported under bond, no excise duty is payable; that their argument in this regard has been noted by the Tribunal in the Final Order dated 12.8.2002; that, however, the Tribunal while passing the Final Order, had not given any finding on this submission; that unlike in Rule 173H, under Rule 173 -M of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, there is no stipulation or condition that the activity of repair or re -conditioning, etc. should not amount to manufacture. He relied upon the decision in the case of Balamurgam and Balamurli v. CCE wherein it has been held that if there is a patent error in the order, the Tribunal has power to recall the same when the wrong committed by itself causes prejudice to a innocent party. Reliance has also been placed on the decision in Unique Resin Industries v. CCE, Baroda . He, therefore, submitted that as the motor vehicles have been exported, no Central Excise duty can be demanded; that this mistake may be rectified by calling the Final Order for passing suitable orders setting aside the duty demand in respect of vehicles exported by them.

(3.) Shri Virag Gupta, learned D.R., on the other hand submitted that the Tribunal has held in the Final Order in question that the Processes undertaken by Maruti Udyog Ltd. does not amount to repair but amount to manufacture of a new motor vehicle; that Provisions of Rule 173M are not applicable as the goods have not been repaired or reconditioned as the processes have been considered to be a process of manufacture.