CC Vs. MRF LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this MISC application for rectification of mistake filed by Revenue against Tribunal Final Order No. 2242 to 2272/97 dated 11.9.1997, the contention is that the said final order suffers from mistake which needs to be rectified with respect to denial of leviability of CESS on imported natural rubber under Section 12 of the Rubber Act, 1947.

(2.) HEARD Shri Section Sankaravadivelu, Ld. DR who submits that the goods were imported sometime in July to August 1995 and thereafter when the Tribunal heard the appellants appeal leading to the said final order the clarification of the Department of Revenue dt. 22.7.1997 was issued subsequent to the assessment of the goods and therefore should not have been applied in view of the settled law that said circular will have only prospective effect. In this connection, he cites the decision in the case of Eswaran and Sons Engrs. Ltd. v. CCE wherein this principle enunciated in the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Quadrotnatic Engg. Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector vide final order No. E/945 to 947/98 -B1 dt. 17.7.1998 were followed. He also submits that thereafter the said circular has been withdrawn by later circular dt. 8.10.1998, the effect of which is that the CESS would be leviable on imported natural rubber prior to 22.7.1997 and after 8.10.1998 even if the circulars are binding on the Revenue. He therefore submits that the retrospective application of circular dt. 22.7.1997 contained in the Tribunal final order has led to a mistake apparent on the face of record in that final order. He also reiterates the grounds made out in the application by citing the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Aroon Phospho Products v. Collector in 1996 (86) ELT 476 (SC) : 1996 (67) ECR 121 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had remanded the matter for reconsideration by CEGAT on the basis of fresh evidence coming into existence after passing of the final order. He submits that ratio thereof would be applicable to the facts of this case. Thirdly, Ld. DR submits that the ROM application gives consideration favour in order to avoid multiplicity of litigations forcing the Revenue to run from pillar to post for amelioration of the grievance.

(3.) HEARD Shri Section Ignatius, Ld. Consultant for the respondents who submits that it is respondents who are running from pillar to post because the Revenue has not given effect to the decision in the final order in their favour. He submits that there is no mistake occurring on the face of the record of this final order because when the said order was passed only circular in existence was circular dt. 22.7.1997 wherein it was categorically held that CESS would not be leviable on imported natural rubber but only on rubber which is produced in India under the said Rubber Act. He further submits that Revenue's circular was based on circular issued by the parent Administrative Ministry namely Ministry of Commerce. Therefore when the final order was passed, at that time the Tribunal had rightly taken cognisance of the said circular and issued decision in their favour as contained therein. Therefore, no mistake on the face of the record in this case and the ROM application needs to be rejected.