2007 (4) TMI 606 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of mistake application under Rule 40 & 41 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for implementation of Tribunal's order; Jurisdiction of Tribunal to rectify mistakes in miscellaneous orders; Appellant challenging Assistant Commissioner's order on interest calculation.

Analysis:

1. The rectification of mistake application was filed concerning Order No. M/177/C-III/WZB/06/SMC dated 28-6-2006 passed by the Tribunal on a miscellaneous application under Rule 40 & 41 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for implementing the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal observed that it cannot examine the correctness of the interest calculation by the revenue as the Assistant Commissioner had already implemented the order. The Tribunal directed the appellant to challenge the Assistant Commissioner's order through an appeal before the appropriate authority if aggrieved.

2. The application for rectification of mistake was filed under Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act 1962, which allows rectification of mistakes apparent from the records in orders passed by the Tribunal under Section 129B(1). However, the Tribunal noted that the jurisdiction to rectify mistakes under Section 129B(2) is limited to orders under Section 129B(1). As the appellant sought modification of miscellaneous orders for implementing the Tribunal's earlier order, the provisions of Section 129B(2) were deemed inapplicable. The Tribunal emphasized that no inherent jurisdiction could be exercised without a mistake apparent on the face of the records, and the grounds presented by the appellant were based on merits, seeking a review rather than rectification.

3. The Tribunal concluded that there were no merits in the rectification of mistake application and rejected it. It advised the appellant to challenge the Assistant Commissioner's order on interest calculation before the Commissioner (Appeals) if dissatisfied. The Tribunal clarified that it could not assess the correctness of the original adjudicating authority's order, which was the appellant's request.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the rectification of mistake application, emphasizing that it was not a case for exercising inherent jurisdiction and that challenging the Assistant Commissioner's order should be pursued through appropriate channels.

Judgment Summary:
The Tribunal dismissed the rectification of mistake application, highlighting the limitations of its jurisdiction under Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act 1962 and emphasizing that challenges to the Assistant Commissioner's order should be addressed through the appropriate appellate process. The Tribunal underscored the distinction between rectification of mistakes and seeking a review based on merits, ultimately rejecting the application and directing the appellant to pursue the matter through the designated appeals process.