2016 (6) TMI 862 - AT - Customs

Rectification of mistake in the order - Held that - On careful consideration of the arguments of both sides and perusal of records, we find that contention of the Ld AR that the shipping bills are not finally assessed would require this Tribunal to re-examine records and re-appreciate evidences. This would amount to review of its own order which is not sanctioned by law. Another mistake that the Tribunal disposes of the appeals pertaining to two OIOs viz., OIO No KDL/COMMR/PVRR/24/2014-15 dt 31.3.2015 and OIO No KDL/COMMR/ PVRR/27/2014-15 dt 31.3.2015. However, only one order is mentioned on the title page of the said order of the Tribunal. - order rectified to that extent.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of mistake in Tribunal order regarding disposal of appeals and assessment of shipping bills.

Analysis:
1. The Revenue filed an application seeking rectification of mistake in the Tribunal Order dated 20.10.2015. The Ld AR for the Revenue pointed out two mistakes in the order. Firstly, the order disposed of appeals pertaining to two OIOs, but only one order was mentioned on the title page. The Tribunal agreed with this mistake and rectified it by correcting the reference to the OIO numbers. Secondly, the AR argued that the Tribunal incorrectly considered that the shipping bills were finally assessed based on a letter from the Principal Commissioner of Customs. However, it was revealed that the bills were only provisionally assessed, leading to an error in the Tribunal's decision that the demands were time-barred.

2. The Ld Counsel for the appellants contended that the shipping bills were indeed finally assessed as per the Commissioner's letter and other evidence. However, the Tribunal noted that delving into this matter would amount to reviewing its own order, which is not permissible under law. Citing the decision in CCE, Belapur, Mumbai vs. RDC Concrete (I) P Ltd, the Counsel argued against a detailed re-examination of the order.

3. After considering both arguments and examining the records, the Tribunal concluded that the AR's contention regarding the shipping bills required a review of evidence, which is not allowed under law. Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in RDC Concrete (I) P Ltd case, the Tribunal emphasized that rectification of a mistake should be evident and not involve a lengthy process of reasoning. Therefore, the Tribunal did not accede to the Revenue's request for rectification based on the shipping bills assessment issue.

4. Consequently, the Tribunal partially allowed the Revenue's application for rectification and corrected the subject order dated 20.10.2015 to address the mistake related to the disposal of appeals, as highlighted in paragraph 3 of the judgment. The decision was pronounced in open court, adhering to the legal principles discussed during the proceedings.