2016 (11) TMI 910 - AT - Customs

Power of CESTAT for Rectification of Mistake - warehousing of goods - impropriety of manner of drawal of sample - the evidences and records such as contemporaneous bills of entry, testing samples, warehousing of goods have not been considered by this Tribunal - Held that - The Hon ble Supreme Court CCE, Belapur, Mumbai Versus RDC Concrete (India) P. Ltd. 2011 (8) TMI 25 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA in the context of Rectification of Mistake has detailed out as to when a rectification of mistake can be undertaken - the applicants are seeking for reconsideration of the Bill of Entry, warehousing provisions which would tantamount to re-opening the matter and rehearing the matter in full and thus ROM petitions are rejected

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of mistake petition challenging CESTAT order on various grounds.

Analysis:
1. The Rectification of Mistake petition challenged the Final Order passed by the Tribunal on several grounds. The contentions raised included the failure of the order to give a finding on the adjudicating authority exceeding the Show Cause Notice (SCN), non-consideration of contemporaneous Bills of Entry, lack of consideration for the petitioner's warehousing contention, and the neglect of facts and case laws regarding the drawal of samples. The Tribunal heard both sides and carefully reviewed the records and submissions presented by the applicants.

2. The applicants argued that crucial evidence such as contemporaneous bills of entry, testing samples, and warehousing of goods had not been taken into account by the Tribunal. In this context, the Tribunal referred to a Supreme Court case concerning Rectification of Mistake, emphasizing that rectification should only be made for obvious and patent mistakes, not for debatable points of law. The Court highlighted that re-appreciating evidence on a debatable point does not constitute rectification of a mistake apparent on the record.

3. The Tribunal also cited various legal precedents to illustrate when an item can be considered a mistake apparent on record. These precedents emphasized that rectification should not involve re-arguing the matter or questioning the interpretation given by the authority. The Tribunal further referred to specific case laws to support its decision in the present case, rejecting the applicants' request for reconsideration of the Bill of Entry and warehousing provisions as it would amount to reopening and rehearing the matter in full.

4. The applicants sought reliance on specific decisions, including one related to the Income Tax Act and another from the Bombay High Court. However, the Tribunal decided to follow the Supreme Court's decision in the case of RDC Concrete (India) P. Ltd. instead of considering these specific cases. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the Rectification of Mistake petitions based on the grounds presented by the applicants, as they were deemed to be seeking a re-opening and re-hearing of the matter.

5. In conclusion, the Tribunal pronounced the operative part of the order on 19.7.2016, rejecting the Rectification of Mistake petitions filed by the applicants challenging the CESTAT order.