2016 (4) TMI 1244 - HC - Customs

Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has committed substantial error of law by declining production of additional evidence in the appeals filed by the importer even though the Revenue has established sufficient cause to adduce additional evidence within the meaning of Rule 23 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982? - Held that - Whatever be the validity of such conclusions, the fact remains that the scope of rectification jurisdiction was extremely narrow. The Tribunal having considered all the aspects in the earlier round of litigation was correctly persuaded not to exercise jurisdiction of rectification - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Tribunal's rejection of rectification application by the department.

Analysis:
The High Court of Gujarat heard the challenge to the order passed by the CESTAT, where the Tribunal had rejected the department's rectification application. The Tribunal had earlier allowed the appeal of the assessee and declined the department's request to place additional evidence on record. The department repeated this request in the rectification application, which was again turned down by the Tribunal. The questions raised for consideration were whether the Tribunal erred in declining the production of additional evidence and whether it was obligated to allow the Revenue's application for additional evidence. The High Court, after reviewing the documents, concluded that no substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's order on the rectification application. The Court noted that the rectification jurisdiction was narrow, and since the Tribunal had thoroughly considered the issue in the previous round of litigation, it was correct in not exercising rectification jurisdiction. The Court stated that if the Revenue's appeal had been against the base order of the Tribunal, they would have examined the legality of the findings, but in the context of rectification, no error was found. Consequently, the tax appeal along with the Civil Application was dismissed.