2002 (7) TMI 373 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Application for rectification of mistake in a legal judgment

Analysis:
The application for rectification of mistake was filed by M/s. Gopal Mills, seeking a review of the Final Order passed by the Tribunal. The applicants were not present during the hearing, and it was requested that the matter be decided without their presence. The Tribunal proceeded to review the application and heard submissions from Shri Mewa Singh, the Senior Departmental Representative representing the Respondent.

The crux of the application highlighted various points where the applicants believed the Tribunal had erred in its Final Order. These points included the alleged ignorance of decisions from co-ordinate Benches, failure to mention a Supreme Court decision, disregard for RT 12 returns demonstrating duty payment, lack of discussion on factors affecting production increase, and oversight of a physical verification conducted by the Department. The applicants argued that these omissions should be considered as mistakes under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, citing relevant case law such as Best & Crompton Engineering v. CCE - 2000 (121) E.L.T. 272 (LB).

In response, Shri Mewa Singh contended that all submissions by the applicants had been duly considered by the Tribunal in the Final Order. He emphasized that not every case law or submission needed to be explicitly discussed in the Order. He argued that there was no apparent mistake on the face of the record, and thus, the application for rectification should be rejected.

After considering the arguments from both sides, the Tribunal found merit in the submissions made by the Senior Departmental Representative. It was established that the Final Order had thoroughly examined the points raised by the applicants, and each decision or submission need not be individually addressed in the Order. The Tribunal reiterated the legal principle that the power of rectification is limited to correcting obvious and patent mistakes, not debatable issues of law or fact. Citing precedents like Vasudeo Vishwanath Saraf - AIR 1986 SC 2105 and GTC Industries Ltd. v. CCE - 1996 (88) E.L.T. 737 (Tri.), the Tribunal concluded that no mistake apparent on the record existed in the Final Order. Consequently, the application for rectification was dismissed.

In summary, the Tribunal's decision emphasized the narrow scope of rectification powers, focusing on correcting only clear and indisputable errors in a legal judgment. The judgment underscored the importance of recording relevant reasons for a decision without the need to address every submission or case law cited during proceedings. Ultimately, the application for rectification was rejected based on the absence of any evident mistake in the Final Order.