2008 (1) TMI 772 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Bench in hearing a case with confiscated property over 10 lakhs.
2. Validity of raising fresh issues regarding jurisdiction after the case was heard.
3. Power of the Tribunal to rectify mistakes on record vs. reviewing the order.
4. Applicability of case laws and the standard for a mistake apparent on the record.

Analysis:
1. The applicant sought rectification of a mistake in the Final Order, contending that the Single Member lacked jurisdiction due to the value of confiscated property exceeding 10 lakhs. Additionally, discrepancies in the case law application and the reasons for confiscation were highlighted. Reference was made to a Supreme Court decision in the case of Honda Siel Power v. CCE. The Tribunal noted that the case was extensively heard, and raising jurisdictional issues post-hearing was deemed impermissible.

2. The Tribunal emphasized that once a case has been argued at length before the Bench, raising fresh issues regarding jurisdiction post-hearing is not acceptable. The Customs Act empowers the Tribunal to rectify mistakes on record but not to review the order. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in T.S. Balram ITO Company Circle v. Volkart Bros, it was reiterated that a decision on a debatable point of law does not constitute a mistake apparent on the record.

3. The Tribunal scrutinized the contentions of the applicant, deeming them as a veiled attempt for a review of the Final Order under the guise of rectification of mistakes. It was clarified that the Tribunal does not have the authority to review its orders. Consequently, the application for rectification was found to lack merit and was rejected.

4. The judgment underscored the importance of distinguishing between a mistake apparent on the record and a debatable legal point. Quoting the Supreme Court, it was reiterated that an obvious and patent mistake, not a matter subject to differing opinions, qualifies as a mistake apparent on the record. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's contentions did not meet the threshold for rectification based on the established legal standards.

Conclusion:
The judgment dismissed the application for rectification, emphasizing the limits of the Tribunal's authority in rectifying mistakes on record and the distinction between rectification and review of orders. The decision highlighted the need for mistakes to be evident and not open to debate to warrant rectification.