Commr.Of Central Excise-Ii,Thane vs Daisy Trading Corp
- SCC(2010) 14 SCC 800
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A finding by an appellate tribunal that there is no mistake apparent from the record in a previous order is a pure question of fact giving rise to no question of law, and therefore does not constitute a basis for appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 35L(B) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The scope of Section 35(c)(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which governs rectification of orders, is very limited.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Commnr. of Central Excise-II, Thane .. Appellant(s)
Versus
Daisy Trading Corporation .. Respondent(s)
ORDER
Delay condoned.
This appeal by the revenue under Section 35L(B) of the Central Excise Act,
1944 (`the Act' for short) is directed against order dated 21st February, 2008 passed
by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, at
Mumbai (for short `the Tribunal'). By the impugned order, the Tribunal has
dismissed the application preferred by the revenue for rectification of its final order
No.A/514/2007/C-I(EB) dated 23rd July,2007, which is not questioned in this appeal.
The application for rectification was preferred by the revenue on the
ground that in the light of the order dated 23rd August, 1991 passed by the
Commissioner of Central Excise, inter-alia, holding that the subject goods, namely,
canvas cloth and tarpaulin cloth fall for classification under Chapter heading 52.07
of Schedule II to CETA, 1985, a mistake apparent from the record had crept in the
order of
..2/-
:2: the Tribunal, requiring rectification. Rejecting the application, the Tribunal has
come to the conclusion that the stated ground cannot be said to be a mistake
apparent from the record, falling within the ambit of Section 35(c)(2) of the Act,
inasmuch as the subject goods falling under both the headings, viz., 52.07 and 52.08
are not leviable to basic excise duty as the levy of such duty is exempt and the said
goods are leviable only to additional duty of excise, for which confiscation is not
permissible.
Be that as it may, apart from the fact that the scope of Section 35(c)(2) of
the Act is very limited, the finding of the Tribunal that there is no mistake apparent
from the record in its order dated 23rd July, 2007 is a pure question of fact, giving
rise to no question of law requiring consideration by this Court.
The Civil Appeal is dismissed accordingly.
...................J. [ D.K. JAIN ]
...................J. [ R.M. LODHA ]
NEW DELHI, MARCH 16, 2009.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free