2017 (8) TMI 1398 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of Mistake application - Ms. Neha Garg, the Ld. Counsel submits that the entire order is against the assessee but somehow in concluding para 7 it is mentioned that the appeal is allowed - Held that - In view of above in para 7 we insert the word not . After inserting the word not it will be read as In the result, the appeal is not allowed - ROM allowed. ROM application - appellants submits that the submissions made by the appellants were not considered by the Tribunal and the same are not reflecting in the impugned order - Held that - It is not necessary to impede each and every argument of the appellant. Only the cumulative effect will have to mention in the order - Also, In the name of ROM, review of the appeal is not permissible - ROM dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rectification of mistake in the Tribunal's Final Order.
2. Consideration of submissions made by the appellant-assessee.
3. Permissibility of review of appeal in the name of ROM.

Issue 1: Rectification of mistake in the Tribunal's Final Order
In the case, the Revenue filed a ROM stating an apparent mistake in the Tribunal's Final Order. The Ld. Counsel for the Department pointed out that the order was against the assessee but erroneously mentioned in the concluding para that the "appeal is allowed." The Ld. Counsel for the assessee agreed with this observation. Consequently, it was decided to insert the word 'not' in para 7, changing the statement to "In the result, the appeal is not allowed." The ROM was allowed based on this correction.

Issue 2: Consideration of submissions made by the appellant-assessee
In another ROM filed by the appellant-assessee, it was claimed that their submissions were not considered by the Tribunal and were not reflected in the impugned order. The Tribunal clarified that it is not necessary to address each argument individually, and only the cumulative effect needs to be mentioned in the order, citing the ratio laid down in the case of CIT v. Karam C. Thappar. The Tribunal dismissed the ROM, emphasizing that a review of the appeal is not permissible, citing various cases like Prajatantra Prachar Samity v. CIT, CIT v. McDowell & Co Ltd., M/s. Bhagat Construction Store v. CIT, and CIT v. Malwa Texturising (P) Ltd.

Issue 3: Permissibility of review of appeal in the name of ROM
The Tribunal further clarified that a review of the appeal is not permissible under the name of ROM, citing precedents from cases like Prajatantra Prachar Samity v. CIT, CIT v. McDowell & Co Ltd., M/s. Bhagat Construction Store v. CIT, and CIT v. Malwa Texturising (P) Ltd. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the ROM filed by the appellant-assessee and dismissed it.

This judgment highlights the importance of rectifying mistakes in orders, considering the cumulative effect of arguments, and the limitations on reviewing appeals under the guise of ROM.