2013 (11) TMI 1477 - AT - Customs

Rectification of mistake - Bench has passed final order on the submission that there was no notification issued appointing Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Daman to adjudicate the show cause notices issued to the respondents - Appellant contends that there was indeed a Notification No. 120/2006-Cus. (N.T.), dated 27-11-2006, which appointed the Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Daman to exercise his powers to discharge the duties as an adjudicating authority - Held that - Court was not shown any notification appointing the Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Daman as adjudicating authority to hear and dispose of the appeal arising out of the show cause notice dated 31-3-2005. Notification dated 27-11-2006 on which learned departmental representative is relying upon was not brought to our notice and hence that is not a mistake apparent on the face of record in our order. In the absence of such notification being produced before us it cannot be said that bench overlooked the same. Hence, there is no error apparent on the face of the order - Rectification denied.

Summary

Issues: Rectification of mistake in the final order regarding the appointment of the adjudicating authority.

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD, the issue at hand was the rectification of a mistake in the Final Order dated 5-7-2012 regarding the appointment of the adjudicating authority. Despite the absence of representation from the respondents, the Revenue filed an application for rectification, contending that there was a notification appointing the Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Daman to adjudicate the show cause notices issued to the respondents. The Revenue sought the order to be recalled, appeals to be restored, and to be disposed of on merits.

Upon review, the Tribunal noted that in the previous final order, the submissions made by the learned counsel were specifically outlined. The Tribunal also observed that there was no notification appointing the Commissioner as the adjudicating authority for the appeals in question. The notification dated 27-11-2006, which the Revenue relied upon, was not brought to the Tribunal's attention during the previous proceedings. As such, the Tribunal concluded that the alleged mistake was not apparent on the face of the record and that there was no error in the previous order. The Tribunal emphasized that without the notification being produced before them, it could not be assumed that the bench overlooked it, leading to the dismissal of the application for rectification of mistake.

In summary, the judgment upheld the original order, stating that the application for rectification of mistake lacked merit and was subsequently dismissed. The Tribunal's decision was based on the absence of evidence supporting the alleged mistake regarding the appointment of the adjudicating authority, as the relevant notification was not presented during the initial proceedings.