2018 (11) TMI 1765 - AT - Customs

Rectification of mistake - It is the contention of Learned Counsel for the applicant that the orders are not being implemented in full owing to the absence of reference to some of the orders impugned but not enumerated separately - case of Revenue is that these mistakes cannot be rectified at this stage as Section 129B(2) of Customs Act 1962 restricts the correction of any order to six months from the date of its issue - HELD THAT - Fundamental to the provision in law is that a mistake in an order should not be perpetuated and should not mark the disposal of an appeal against such order. Imposing a limitation on such rectification is counter productive and counter intuitive. While holding that the applications have been filed in time we take note that the rectifications now sought for does not arise from the body of the decision of the Tribunal but to the absence of reference of the appeals that were considered for disposal in that order. This is a matter that can be rectified by the Registry. Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of mistakes in two orders issued by the Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The applications sought rectification of mistakes in two orders issued by the Tribunal, relating to the enumeration of impugned orders.
2. The first error was in the preamble of one order, where a numerical mistake was pointed out by the applicant.
3. The second error was in the preamble of another order, where an impugned order was not mentioned, leading to incomplete implementation.
4. The Authorized Representative argued that rectification cannot be done due to the time limit under Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, citing relevant case laws.
5. The Tribunal analyzed Section 129B(2) and concluded that the time restriction applies only to the initiation of rectification, not to rectification itself if brought to notice by either party.
6. The Tribunal distinguished the cited cases and emphasized the importance of rectifying mistakes promptly to avoid perpetuating errors in orders.
7. The Tribunal noted that previous judgments did not directly address the issue raised by the Authorized Representative, highlighting a lack of settled law on the subject.
8. Emphasizing the need to correct mistakes promptly, the Tribunal rejected the argument of imposing limitations on rectification as counterproductive.
9. The Tribunal held that the applications were filed in time and directed the registry to issue a corrigendum to rectify the typographical errors in the orders.
10. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the applications as infructuous, indicating that the rectifications sought did not affect the substance of the Tribunal's decisions.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues raised, the arguments presented, the legal interpretation of relevant provisions, and the Tribunal's decision based on the facts and legal principles involved.