2016 (11) TMI 1224 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of mistake - section 35C (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that - power to rectify a mistake should be exercised when the mistake is a patent one and should be quite obvious - the mistake cannot be such which can be ascertained by a long drawn process of reasoning - while rectifying a mistake, an erroneous view of law or a debatable point cannot be decided. Moreover, incorrect application of law can also not be corrected.. ROM application not maintainable - application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of mistake apparent from the record in the order dated 20.07.2015 under section 35C (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The applicant sought rectification of a mistake in the order dated 20.07.2015, relying on a decision of the Tribunal in another case. The applicant argued that the decision referred to in the order was in their favor and not against them. On the other hand, the Revenue contended that the Tribunal had no power to review its own order or substitute it with another order, as its power was limited to rectifying mistakes apparent on the record.

The Tribunal, after considering the arguments from both sides and examining the records, found merit in the Revenue's contention. The Tribunal noted that the order in question was dictated and pronounced in open court after extensive hearing. The applicant's claim of error in appreciating the earlier order required a detailed re-examination of facts and case laws. The Tribunal emphasized that it lacked the authority to recall the order and reverse the decision, citing a Supreme Court case which established that a mistake apparent on record must be obvious and patent, not a result of lengthy reasoning.

Referring to previous Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal clarified that rectification of mistakes should be limited to obvious errors and not involve deciding debatable points or correcting an incorrect application of law. The Tribunal highlighted that a different view could not be taken through a Rectification of Mistake (ROM) application, as it would essentially amount to reviewing or recalling the earlier order, which was impermissible.

Consequently, the Tribunal held that the ROM application was not maintainable and dismissed it, emphasizing that the power to rectify mistakes was restricted to correcting obvious errors on the record. The order was pronounced in open court on 02/11/2016.