2011 (1) TMI 755 - AT - Central Excise

Application for rectification of mistakes - in the case of Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (2008 -TMI - 30682 - SUPREME COURT) non-consideration of a decision of the jurisdictional Court or of the Supreme Court can be said to be a mistake apparent from record needing rectification - Application for rectification of appeal accepted.

Summary

Issues:
1. Consideration of a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the impugned order.
2. Rectification of mistake due to non-consideration of the Supreme Court decision.
3. Fixing the appeal for fresh hearing based on the rectification of mistake.

Analysis:
1. The Tribunal passed the impugned order based on the decision of the Tribunal in a previous case. The Departmental representatives failed to present any contrary decision from a higher judicial forum. Consequently, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the impugned order. However, a Review Application on the grounds that the Tribunal did not consider the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in a specific case was filed. The Jt. CDR acknowledged that the Supreme Court decision was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal during the initial order. The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's ruling in a different case, recognized that non-consideration of a decision of the jurisdictional Court or the Supreme Court could constitute a mistake apparent from the record requiring rectification.

2. Due to the failure to cite and consider the Supreme Court's decision in the initial order, the Tribunal allowed the miscellaneous application for rectification of mistake filed by the Department. The appeal was scheduled for a fresh hearing to address the oversight and to provide the parties with an opportunity to present arguments on all relevant points, including the validity of the show-cause notice and other grounds. This decision was made to ensure that the appeal proceedings were conducted in a fair and comprehensive manner, taking into account all relevant legal precedents and arguments.

3. The respondents were granted the liberty to argue on all relevant points during the upcoming hearing of the appeal. This step was taken to uphold the principles of natural justice and to ensure that both parties had the opportunity to present their case effectively. By pronouncing the decision in open court, the Tribunal signaled its commitment to transparency and fairness in the adjudication process, setting the stage for a thorough and well-informed hearing on the appeal.