2006 (12) TMI 63 - AT - Customs

Rectification and mistake - Appellant contended that while holding that the equipment imported by them as not Surface dressing equipment and does not entitle to the benefit of notification and it is not considered by tribunal decision - Held that it is not considered as a mistake and not requiring any rectification

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of mistake in Tribunal's order regarding import classification and benefit of notification; Consideration of additional evidence and written submissions; Typographical error in listing appearance of advocate.

Analysis:
The applicants filed applications seeking rectification of a mistake in the Tribunal's order related to the classification of imported equipment and entitlement to a notification benefit. The main contention was the non-consideration of crucial evidence, including a letter from the Project Director of National Highways Authority of India. The applicants argued that the failure to consider this evidence and written submissions amounted to a mistake apparent on the record. However, upon review, the Tribunal found that the order had thoroughly examined all aspects of the matter. The decision was based on a comprehensive analysis of the manufacturing process, technical literature, expert opinions, and statements from individuals associated with the appellants. The Tribunal concluded that the additional evidence and written submissions did not alter the outcome, as they were merely a reiteration of oral arguments presented during the hearing. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the applications, emphasizing that seeking a review under the guise of a rectification of mistake application was not permissible under established legal principles.

In a separate aspect of the judgment, a typographical error was noted in the listing of appearances, where the name of an advocate who had argued the case did not appear in the records. The Tribunal acknowledged this error as a typographical mistake and rectified it by including the advocate's name in the appearance list. This rectification addressed the grievance raised by the advocate regarding the omission of their name from the records. Consequently, the applications were disposed of in accordance with the rectification of the typographical error, ensuring accuracy in the representation of appearances in the order.

Overall, the Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of a thorough examination of evidence and submissions in reaching a judgment. It clarified that the mere presence of additional evidence or written submissions does not necessarily constitute a mistake requiring rectification. Additionally, the judgment underscored the significance of accurate record-keeping, as demonstrated by the correction of the typographical error in listing the appearance of an advocate.