ACME CERAMICS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these ROM's are disposed of by a common order as they seek to rectify error in our Final Order Nos. A/11683 -11693/2013, dated 12 -12 -2013 [2014 (304) E.L.T. 542 (Tri. -Ahmd.)]. Ld. Special Counsel Shri P.R.V. Ramanan appearing on behalf of the Revenue would submit that there is mistake apparent from the record. He would draw out attention to our order dated 12 -12 -2013 and submit that in Paragraph 13 there is a mistake apparent inasmuch as the last sentence of the said paragraph indicates that there is no contrary view which has been taken by the Tribunal; it is his submission that the Revenue had relied upon the decisions of Planet Sports Pvt. Ltd. - : 2005 (180) E.L.T. 206, Media Industries Ltd. -, 2006 (199) E.L.T. 345 and Onida Saka Ltd. - : 2011 (267) E.L.T. 101. He would then take us through the entire grounds taken in the applications for the rectification of mistakes and also through the said case laws. He would also take us through the provisions of Section 4A as it stood prior to 14 -5 -2003 and post 14 -5 -2003 and submit that there was always a provision for redetermination of "RSP". It is his submission that there is a mistake apparent on the record as regards factual matrix and take us through the Paragraph 3.1 onwards in the application for rectification of mistakes, and submit that the factual matrix clearly indicates that there were statements which indicate that the ex -factory rates of the tiles cleared were infact incorrect. It is his submission that in this another mistake apparent from the record is pertaining to drawing of adverse inference in Paragraph No. 16 and would read though Paragraph 4.1 onwards in the application for rectification of mistakes and draw our attention to the various portions of the statements reproduced in the rectification of mistake application and submit that the error is apparent and hence the matter to be reopened. It is also his submission that in view of the mistakes apparent on the record as has been brought out in the applications for rectification of mistakes, the impugned order may be rectified and or pass such an order which is deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. That is also his submission that there were provisions for recalculation of RSP's when it is demonstrated that there was additional consideration flowing; in respect of the products covered under provisions of Section 4, Chapter VIII of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

(2.) LD . Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent would submit that the applications which are filed by Revenue are seeking to reargue the entire matter which is impermissible and if aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, Revenue should have preferred an appeal before the proper forum. It was also submitted by the ld. Counsel that this view is settled by the Apex Court in the case of RDC Concrete (India) Pvt. Ltd. -, 2011 (270) E.L.T. 625 (S.C.). It is also submitted that the observations made by the bench in Paragraph 13 was in respect of the decisions which were taken by the Tribunal post -amendment to Section 4, Chapter VIII of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It was also submitted that the view expressed by the Bench was based upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Gulam Mohammad and Anr. as is indicated in Paragraph 12 of the order dated 12 -12 -2013. He would submit that the observations recorded on the factual matrix were only in respect of proceedings before the Bench.

(3.) WE find that the applications filed by the Revenue for rectification of mistakes in our order dated 12 -12 -2013 needs to be dismissed for more than one reasons. Firstly, the applications which are filed by the Revenue is on the observations/findings recorded by the Bench and the said findings and observations are not errors apparent on the face of the record and if the Revenue is aggrieved by such findings and observations, the legal remedies available to them should be explored, if advised to do so. We find that by these applications, Revenue is trying to reargue the entire cases which cannot be permitted as has been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of RDC Concrete (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) wherein their Lordships in Paragraph Nos. 16, 17, 19 and 22 have specifically settled the law which is rectification of mistake cannot be done by re -appreciation of evidence.