2016 (11) TMI 4 - AT - Customs

Rectification of mistake - buyer certificate - Held that - the certificate of buyer was indeed a part of the record before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) has examined and rejected the same solely on the ground that the same has not been authenticated by any statutory authority. I also find that the said certificate was very much of part of appeal and is enclosed in the appeal memorandum as Exhibit A . Thus, there is indeed error in the Tribunal order dated 7.1.20016 that the said certificates were not produced before the lower authorities and need to be introduced as additional evidence. In view of the above, the said certificate cannot be discarded just like that. In view of above, the rectification of mistake application is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of mistake in the original order by Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI regarding the production of documents and rejection of evidence by lower authorities.

Analysis:
The ROM applications were filed by M/s Jindal Drugs Ltd. for rectification of a mistake in the original order dated 07.01.2016. The issue revolved around the production of documents from earnest healthcare limited, which were claimed to be supporting manufacturers. The Tribunal had initially disregarded these documents, stating they were not produced before the lower authorities or sought to be introduced as additional evidence. However, the appellant argued that these documents were indeed presented before the Commissioner (Appeals) and should not be considered additional evidence. The appellant relied on precedents such as Vyankatesh Real Estate Developers Vs. CCE, Nagpur and a judgment from the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in Modest Infrastructure Ltd. to support their claim that the burden of unjust enrichment had been discharged. The appellant emphasized that the certificate from the buyer should be sufficient to negate charges of unjust enrichment.

The learned AR, on the other hand, contended that the certificate provided by the appellant did not include supporting documents like Balance-sheet, making it unreliable. However, upon reviewing the submissions, the Tribunal found that the certificate of the buyer was indeed part of the record before the Commissioner (Appeals) and was enclosed in the appeal memorandum. The Tribunal acknowledged the error in its previous order and allowed the rectification of mistake application. The Tribunal replaced the earlier observations with a detailed explanation regarding the certificate from the importer and its relevance in determining unjust enrichment. The Tribunal emphasized that the certificate from the importer should not be discarded solely based on lack of certification by a statutory authority, citing the judgment from the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in Modest Infrastructure Ltd. as a supporting precedent.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal based on the revised explanation and the precedents cited by the appellant. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering all relevant evidence, including certificates from buyers or importers, in determining unjust enrichment and entitlement to a refund.