2012 (6) TMI 738 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of mistake - Held that - The assessee s appeal and the Department s appeal were both directed against the same order of the Commissioner and both should have been listed for joint hearing and disposal. The assessee s appeal, though filed later, was listed before the Bench for final hearing while the Department s appeal, filed earlier, was still pending. Neither side mentioned anything about the pending appeal of the Department when the Bench passed Final Order dated 3-12-2009 in the assessee s appeal. We are constrained to believe that both sides were aware of the factum of pendency of the Department s appeal when the Final order was passed by this Bench on 3-12-2009. Be that as it may, the crucial finding recorded by the Bench in Final Order dated 3-12-2009, on the basis of which the assessee got relief, is erroneous and the injustice arising out of such finding has got to be remedied. There is a more or less similar situation in relation to Miscellaneous Order dated 19-7-2010 also - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Correction of respondent's name in appeal
2. Delay in listing the miscellaneous application
3. Failure to mention pendency of Department's appeal
4. Miscommunication leading to miscarriage of justice
5. Remedial measures under Rule 41 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules

Analysis:

Correction of respondent's name in appeal: The judgment addresses a miscellaneous application filed by the Department seeking a change in the respondent's name from 'Radiant Cables (P) Ltd.' to 'Bakelite Hylam Ltd.' The Tribunal allowed this application after confirming the correct name based on past records and directed the appellant to make the necessary correction before the Assistant Registrar.

Delay in listing the miscellaneous application: The judgment highlights a significant delay by the Registry in listing the miscellaneous application filed by the Department, which was submitted in January 2010 but not listed promptly. This delay was noted by the Tribunal, indicating inefficiencies in the administrative process.

Failure to mention pendency of Department's appeal: The judgment points out a crucial oversight where neither party, particularly the JDR representing the Department, informed the Tribunal about the pendency of the Department's appeal while recording findings in a previous order. This failure to disclose relevant information led to confusion and subsequent legal complications.

Miscommunication leading to miscarriage of justice: The judgment emphasizes the lack of communication regarding the pendency of the Department's appeal and the failure to take necessary steps for correcting the respondent's name in the appeal. This miscommunication resulted in a miscarriage of justice due to multiple factors, including the erroneous findings in previous orders.

Remedial measures under Rule 41 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules: The Tribunal invoked Rule 41, which empowers it to issue necessary orders to prevent abuse of process and ensure justice. In light of the errors and injustices stemming from previous orders, the Tribunal recalled a final order, directed the joint hearing of both appeals, and dismissed the department's pending ROM application as infructuous to rectify the situation and ensure a fair hearing for all parties involved.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues addressed, the sequence of events leading to the decision, and the remedial measures taken by the Tribunal to rectify the errors and uphold the principles of justice in the legal proceedings.