2014 (7) TMI 1121 - AT - Customs

Rectification of mistake - Benefit of Notification No. 29/2010-Cus. - Held that - Bill of Entry filed by the applicants for clearance of the goods it was specifically mentioned that the goods are aluminium profile, hardware for furniture fittings meaning thereby that the goods in question are for fabrication/manufacture of furniture. In these circumstances a finding is arrived at that the goods are not for retail sale. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO v. Ashok Textiles reported in 1960 (12) TMI 14 - SUPREME Court held that if a statutory provision is capable of two interpretation, taking one such interpretation cannot give rise to an error apparent from the record even if one is of the view that the other interpretation is more correct in the context. - it cannot be considered as a mistake apparent on record which is obvious and self-evident - Rectification denied.

Summary

Issues: Rectification of mistake in the final order denying benefits of Notification No. 29/2010-Cus.

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI, the applicant filed an application for rectification of mistake in the Final Order, claiming that the order was issued without pronouncement despite being reserved. The Tribunal directed the Deputy Registrar to investigate and report on the responsible party for the premature issuance of the order. The applicant contended that there was a mistake in the final order as it denied the benefits of Notification No. 29/2010-Cus. by wrongly assuming the goods were for industrial consumers, not retail sale. The applicant cited the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's decision in CCE v. NTB International Pvt. Ltd. to support their claim that the mistake was apparent on record and required rectification.

The Revenue opposed the application, arguing that the goods in question were specifically mentioned as hardware for furniture fittings in the Bill of Entry, indicating they were not for retail sale. They contended that the application was an attempt to review the order under the guise of rectification, which the Tribunal lacked the power to do. The Tribunal referred to the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's decision in CCE v. NTB International Pvt. Ltd., emphasizing that rectification of mistake should be obvious and self-evident, without requiring extensive reasoning. The Tribunal analyzed the nature of the goods based on the Bill of Entry and concluded that they were for fabrication/manufacture of furniture, not for retail sale, aligning with the Revenue's position.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the interpretation of the statutory provision regarding the goods did not constitute an obvious and self-evident mistake on record. They determined that the facts presented did not support the claim for rectification, as the issue was not clear-cut and required interpretation. Therefore, the application for rectification was dismissed, and the Tribunal upheld the original order denying the benefits of Notification No. 29/2010-Cus. The Tribunal also highlighted the procedural error in directly issuing the order without listing it for pronouncement, instructing the Deputy Registry to investigate and assign responsibility for the oversight.