2007 (6) TMI 105 - AT - Customs

When all the facts and circumstances have been considered and dealt upon by the OA the revision can t be done since there is no mistake apparent on the record - When the view of the tribunal is upheld by the HC the same shall be given due weightage

Summary

Issues:
1. Alleged mistakes in the final order passed by the Tribunal.

Analysis:

The appellants filed an application pointing out five alleged mistakes in the final order passed by the Tribunal. Firstly, the appellants claimed that a Board's Circular was not considered. Secondly, they argued that some grounds from the memorandum of appeal were not addressed. Thirdly, they contended that a case law regarding the Assistant Collector's power to review his assessment order was not considered. Fourthly, they asserted that the Tribunal failed to distinguish the facts of the case from a previous judgment. Lastly, they claimed that the Tribunal erred in not following a specific decision. However, the Tribunal found that the Board's circular was covered in the final order, and all the points raised by the appellants were considered under a specific issue in the final order.

The appellants also alleged that three grounds raised in the appeal were not considered. These grounds included issues related to the opening of finalized assessment without valid grounds, the Assistant Collector's ability to review his own order, and the absence of punishment to the importer for departmental lapses. The Tribunal, after considering relevant legal precedents, concluded that all these grounds were indeed covered in the final order under a specific issue, and the decision was in line with previous judgments and legal principles.

The appellants further argued that the Tribunal failed to distinguish the facts of a previous case and erred in not following a specific decision. The Tribunal clarified that the previous decision was upheld by the High Court, and it was appropriate to follow the view endorsed by the High Court rather than a different Tribunal decision. Additionally, the Tribunal highlighted that the appellants' claim regarding the Tribunal's decision not being upheld by an appellate court was unfounded.

The learned SDR presented a decision of the Calcutta High Court and a previous decision of the Tribunal to support the argument that the Tribunal is not empowered to undertake a review of its final order under the Customs Act. The cited decisions emphasized that rectification or review cannot be used to change the entire decision of the Tribunal, as it goes beyond the scope of the relevant legal provisions. The Tribunal, after considering these precedents, concluded that the application to rectify the alleged mistakes in the final order could not be entertained.

In light of the above analysis and finding no apparent mistake in the final order, the Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the appellants, thereby upholding the original decision.