By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, JULY 02, 2016: THE assessee has made an application for Rectification of Mistake in the Final Order No. A/2812/15/EB dated 19.08.2015 of the Tribunal = 2016-TIOL-228-CESTAT-MUM wherein it was held that -

+ A combined reading of the above [heading and HSN Explanatory Note] would indicate that 8485 covers certain parts which are used in a wide variety of machines but are not included by specific names under Chapter 84 in other headings (e.g. ball bearing). Moreover, the said explanatory notes specifically include base plates under 8485. Base plates by very nature would also include base frame and thus would be covered by 8485.90. Base plates and base frames are designed keeping in view the machine or mechanical appliances to be mounted on it. As discussed earlier the base frame is not an integral part of the pump, it is only an accessories to the pump. Even the appellant sells the pump without base frame, as also with base frame. Whenever he is selling along with base frame, its price is separately charged. Keeping in view the above facts in our considered view, the base frame would be classifiable under 8485 and not 8413, irrespective of the fact that such base frames are designed for specific model of the pumps.

The applicant submits that when the matter was heard by the CESTAT in the second round of litigation they had produced various documents, photograph of different types of pumps to argue that the base frame is an integral part of the pump. Inasmuch as in view of the apex court decision in CCE v. Bharat Bijlee - 2006-TIOL-67-SC-CX , the application for Rectification of Mistake needs to be considered since failure to take into consideration the material evidence placed would amount to mistake apparent on the face of the record.

The Bench observed-

"4. On perusal of the final order by this Tribunal we find that the submissions made by the learned Counsel are not acceptable for more than one reason. Firstly we find that the Bench while passing the final order dated 19.08.2015 has considered the entire issue in its proper perspective (from paragraph 5 to paragraph 8). In paragraph 8 the Bench has come to a conclusion and has recorded that the base frame is not an integral part of the pump, it is only an accessory to the pump. In our considered view, all the submissions made by the learned Counsel at the time of final disposal were considered and recorded which is evident from paragraph 2 of the said order. In view of this we find there is no error in our final order, leave alone error apparent on the face of the record."

The Miscellaneous application for Rectification of mistake was rejected.

(See 2016-TIOL-1602-CESTAT-MUM)