Excise Duty – Under Section 35C(2) CESTAT cannot altogether take a different view in law and it cannot reappreciate evidence

CCE Vs RDC Concrete (India) P. Ltd. – Supreme Court of India- There was no mistake apparent on record when the CESTAT did not accept a submission of the respondent-assessee to the effect that the officer appointed to value the goods manufactured by asessee should not have been engaged as a cost accountant. CESTAT exceeded its powers and it tried to re-appreciate the evidence and it reconsidered its legal view taken earlier in pursuance of a rectification application. In our opinion, the CESTAT could not have done so while exercising its powers under Section 35C(2) of the Act, and, therefore, the impugned order passed in pursuance of the rectification application is bad in law and, therefore, the said order is hereby quashed and set aside.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  4409 of 2010

1. Being aggrieved by the Order dated 23^rd November, 2009, passed in Appeal No.E/2032/06-Mum. by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), West Zonal Bench at Mumbai, this appeal has been filed by the Revenue – Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur, Mumbai.