2015 (6) TMI 615 - AT - Customs

Rectification of mistake - Re-appreciation of evidence - Held that - Tribunal vide order dated 17.4.2003 has remanded the matter for limited purpose. Further we find that in the ROM application which runs into 14 pages, the applicant has listed out a large number of points. We have gone through each of these points and we do not find any obvious and patent mistake on the facts. In fact the reasons for differing with the so called facts given by the applicant have not been accepted by the Tribunal in the order dated 19.8.2014. We entirely agree with the contention of the learned AR that the applicant by using the process of ROM wants us to re-appreciate various evidences and come to a different conclusion. The scope of the ROM is explained by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of RDC Concrete (India) P. Ltd. (2011 (8) TMI 25 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) and we are in agreement with the learned AR that in view of the said judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in ROM, we cannot entertain re-appreciation of evidence. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rectification of mistake apparent from the record in an order with a difference of opinion between Member (Judicial) and Member (Technical).
2. Scope of rectification of mistake application under Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act.
3. Consideration of points raised in the rectification of mistake application.
4. Interpretation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment regarding rectification of mistake.
5. Applicability of rectification of mistake for re-appreciation of evidence.
6. Evaluation of the rectification of mistake application and its dismissal.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with an application seeking rectification of a mistake apparent from the record in an order where there was a difference of opinion between Member (Judicial) and Member (Technical). The Tribunal had remanded the matter for a limited purpose in a previous order. The applicant filed a rectification of mistake application, prompting a hearing. The learned Additional Commissioner argued that the points raised in the application did not fall within the purview of rectifiable mistakes under Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act. Reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment emphasizing that rectification of mistake is not for re-appreciation of evidence but for obvious and patent mistakes. The lengthy application with points of disagreement between the Tribunal's reasoning and the applicant's views was highlighted as not constituting an obvious mistake.

The Tribunal considered the arguments presented and found that the applicant's points did not reflect obvious and patent mistakes. It was noted that the reasons for disagreement with the facts were not accepted in a previous order. The Tribunal concurred with the view that the rectification of mistake process should not involve re-appreciation of evidence, aligning with the Supreme Court's interpretation. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's points were incorrect and discussing them would exceed the scope of rectification of mistake. Consequently, the rectification of mistake application was dismissed without imposing any costs.

In summary, the judgment delves into the limitations of rectification of mistake applications, emphasizing that such rectifications are not meant for re-evaluating evidence but for correcting obvious errors. The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the application underscores the importance of adhering to the scope of rectification of mistake procedures as outlined in the relevant legal provisions and judicial interpretations.