2014 (2) TMI 716 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of mistake - High Court of Chhattisgarh directed Tribunal to decide the case of the appellant keeping in view the law laid down by Apex Court in the case of CCE, Chandigarh vs. Doaba Steel Rolling Mills reported in 2011 (7) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - appellant submits that the ratio of Doaba Steel Rolling Mills case is not applicable to the appellant s case - Held that - Court cannot be faulted when both sides fail to bring the material fact and evidence not considered in the course of hearing to give rise to the error in law. It is settled law that an order passed by a court or Tribunal is conclusive in so far as the facts and conclusion recorded therein. The mistake in the order sought to be rectified is not specifically brought to scrutiny showing that such mistake is apparent from record and is a rectifiable mistake - Had there been any fact recorded and law was not rightly applied there to reach to a conclusion, that could have been appreciated to be a case of rectifiable mistake. But that is not the case here. Further, Tribunal has no power of review in absence of statutory provision in that regard. Appellant was well aware that Tribunal has no power of review. But it opted to withdraw its appeal before Hon ble High Court to seek review remedy before Tribunal. On the facts and in the circumstances it is difficult to agree that Tribunal committed any error of law when no rectifiable mistake is apparent from the face of the record. It is accordingly difficult for us to act as a review court which is not the mandate of the statute for which it has become impracticable to redress the grievance of the appellant - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of mistake under Section 35 C (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The application sought rectification of a mistake made by the Tribunal in an earlier order. The appellant argued that the Tribunal's decision was influenced by a direction from the High Court to consider a specific case law. The appellant contended that the facts recorded in the order did not support the application of the case law to their situation. The appellant emphasized that courts should not rely solely on concessions but should apply the law correctly. Various legal precedents were cited to support this argument. The appellant withdrew the appeal from the High Court to seek a review before the Tribunal, leading to the current rectification application.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the facts recorded in the previous order were correct. However, it noted that the appellant's entitlement to challenge the order based on concessions was in question. The Tribunal emphasized that its orders are conclusive unless a mistake apparent from the record is demonstrated. The Tribunal highlighted that it followed the High Court's direction to reconsider the case in light of the specific case law, but no rectifiable mistake was evident. It clarified that without a statutory provision, the Tribunal lacked the power to review its decisions. The Tribunal concluded that it could not rectify the alleged mistake as it was not apparent from the record, leading to the dismissal of the rectification application.

In summary, the Tribunal's decision focused on the lack of a demonstrable mistake in the previous order that warranted rectification. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of following legal precedents and the limitations on its power to review decisions without specific statutory provisions. The application for rectification was dismissed based on the absence of a clear error in the record.