Decided on July 27,1991



Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J) - (1.) THIS is an application for rectification of mistake purported to have arisen in the Final Order No. 86/ 91 -C, dated 31 -1 -1991 [1992 (59) E.L.T. 87 (Tri.)] in the following circumstances.
(2.) THE assessee manufactures paracetamol falling under sub -heading 2942.00 CET 1985 and the product is exempt from the whole of excise duty in terms of Notification 31/88 dated 1 -3 -1988. Upon amendment of the Drugs Price (Control) Order, 1989, this product was deleted from the First Schedule and inserted in the Second Schedule w.e.f. 18 -1 -1989 and was leviable to duty of excise at the rate of 5% ad valorem. For the goods cleared between 18 -1 -1989 to 20 -3 -1989 duty of Rs. 97873.70 was demanded by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad. On appeal the Tribunal in its order (supra) set aside the demand from 18 -1 -1989 to 24 -1 -1989, upholding duty liability only from 25 -1 -1989, the date on which the official gazette publishing Notification No. 31/88 was made available to the public for sale. The Tribunal also directed the Additional Collector to examine the extension of benefit of MODVAT Scheme. According to the Revenue who are the applicants herein, the assessee crossed the aggregate value of clearance of Rs. 15 lakhs on 18 -2 -1989 (this clearance value is eligible for exemption under Notification 175/86 dated 1 -3 -1986), up to which date the goods were chargeable at NIL rate of duty and duty liability arose with effect from 18 -2 -1989 onwards in respect of clearances under Invoice No. 583 dated 18 -2 -1989. The applicants, therefore, prayed that duty liability in respect of clearances for the period from 18 -2 -1989 to 20 -3 -1989 may be confirmed as the extension of MODVAT benefit should take effect only from 18 -2 -1989.
(3.) WE have considered the submissions of the learned SDR and perused the records and written submissions filed on behalf of the assessee, M/s. Veena Organic (P) Ltd. We are of the view that the ROM application is misconceived and not maintainable inasmuch as the demand originally made for the period from 18 -1 -1989 to 20 -3 -1989 gets reduced by virtue of the Tribunal's order to the period 25 -1 -1989 to 20 -3 -1989. Therefore, the turnover for the period 18 -1 -1989 to 20 -3 -1989 should be reduced by the turnover for the period from 18 -1 -1989 to 24 -1 -1989. From out of that turnover for the period 25 -1 -1989 to 20 -3 -1989, the value of Rs.15 lakhs is to be deducted under Notification No. 175/86. In this view of the matter, there is no mistake at all in the final order of the Tribunal and therefore, the ROM application is liable to be rejected as not maintainable. Accordingly, the ROM application is dismissed.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.