JMT LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., JAMSHEDPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides. These fifteen miscellaneous applications for rectification of mistake have been filed by eleven vendors of M/s. Tata Motors against a common final order dated 16 -12 -08 which was passed earlier in respect of 85 appeals filed by the department and 26 cross objection filed by M/s. Tata Motors. It is ascertained from the Registry that neither M/s. Tata Motors nor other vendors of M/s. Tata Motors who were the respondents before the Tribunal, when the said final order was passed, have filed any rectification application as has been filed by the present eleven applicants. All the eleven applicants are represented by Shri A.K. Srivastava, .ld. Company Secretary.

(2.) WE have heard Shri A.K. Srivastava, ld. Company Secretary on behalf of all the appellants and Shri A.K. Sharma, ld. DR for the department. The prayer in these applications is for reconsideration of the final order dated 16 -12 -08 and passing a fresh order. After going through the applications and considering the submissions from both sides, we find that the present applicants are challenging the final order which approved addition of an amount equal to 0.085% in the assessable value towards the cost of drawings and designs on the strength of submissions made by the representatives of M/s. Tata Motors during investigation, who supplied such drawings and designs for getting the impugned goods manufactured by their vendors including the present applicants. In the said final order, it was also held that no additional duty for the extended period would be payable and the penalties imposed were set aside. For the quantification of duty amount for the normal period of limitation, the matter was remanded to the original authority in respect of all the vendors including the present applicants. It was further held that the additional duty paid by the vendors will be admissible as credit to M/s. Tata Motors. The said final order was passed after hearing all concerned with a view to dispose of a large number of appeals and cross objections relating to assessments for a long period and involving so many assessees. The present applicants and Shri A.K. Srivastava were also present during the hearing in the Open Court when the final order was passed.

(3.) FROM the prayer and submissions now made, it is clear that the present applicants are praying for complete review of the final order by way of filing these miscellaneous applications for rectification of error. It is well settled that the Tribunal can only rectify any error apparent on the face of the record while entertaining a rectification application, but the scope of such rectification does not permit a complete review of the order or re -consideration of a case by passing a fresh and totally different order as is being prayed for by the present applicants. We also note that after hearing all concerned, a considered decision was taken by the Tribunal in its Order dated 16 -12 -08 to add 0.085% towards the drawings and designs charges going by the submissions made on behalf of M/s. Tata Motors during investigation, who supplied the said drawings and designs to the vendors for getting the impugned parts made by them according to such drawings and designs. This was a conscious and deliberate decision of the Tribunal after considering all relevant facts and arguments and keeping in view the fact that from the perusal of the samples of drawings and designs it was seen that they were not simple drawings merely conveying the physical dimensions of the impugned components as averred by the applicants, but contained technical details representing designs of specific components to be manufactured. The prayer of the applicants, to review this order, made through rectification applications is not legally permissible as the Tribunal has no power to review its own order. We also note that neither M/s. Tata Motors nor the other vendors similarly placed as the present applicants have filed any application for either rectification or review of the impugned order, under which the matter has been remanded to the original authority for quantifying the duty demand for the normal period of limitation.