1984 (1) TMI 328 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of mistakes apparent from the record under Section 35C(ii) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Rectification of Mistakes:
The case involved an application by M/s. Metal Extruders (I) Pvt. Limited seeking rectification of certain mistakes in the order dated 30-9-1983. The appellant's advocate raised points regarding the lack of findings on contentions related to other parties clearing goods on nil duty, the retrospective effect of a Tariff Advice, and the continuation of proceedings under an omitted rule. The Sr. Departmental Representative argued that no error was apparent from the record, citing the narrow scope of rectification powers under Section 35C. The Tribunal held that the arguments raised did not warrant setting aside the earlier order, especially since certain legal submissions were not raised during the appeal hearing.

2. Legal Points Raised:
The advocate for the appellants contended that the proceedings initiated under Rule 10 could not continue post its omission, but this argument was not raised during the appeal hearing. The Tribunal emphasized that the power to rectify mistakes was limited and not a review mechanism to reverse valid orders. Additionally, the relevance of concurrent findings of fact by lower authorities and the omission of addressing certain arguments in the order were discussed. The Tribunal clarified that not every argument needed explicit findings and that the decision was not based on the contentions in question.

3. Decision and Rejection of Application:
The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both parties and concluded that the grounds for rectification were not valid. It was emphasized that the power to rectify mistakes under Section 35C was narrow and did not extend to setting aside valid orders based on new legal submissions not raised during the appeal. The Tribunal rejected the application for rectification, stating that the arguments did not constitute errors apparent from the record and did not warrant rectification under the provision.

In summary, the judgment addressed the specific points raised by the appellant regarding mistakes in the order, clarified the limited scope of rectification powers under Section 35C, and ultimately rejected the application for rectification based on the lack of merit in the arguments presented.