2017 (10) TMI 1136 - AT - Customs

Rectification of mistake - case of applicant is that the submissions were neither mentioned nor discussed in the impugned order - Held that - the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. K. M. Thapar 1989 (2) TMI 5 - SUPREME Court , observed that only cumulative effect of the arguments will have to be mentioned in the order. It is not necessary to repeat each and every word of the arguments and case law. If some incidental facts were not mentioned, then rectification is not permissible. The impugned order has been passed on merit after hearing both parties and we find no infirmity in it. There is no apparent mistake in the impugned order. Thus, RoA has not merit and the same is dismissed. RoA application dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against the impugned order based on alleged non-mention of submissions, delay in delivering the order, and criminal cases filed against the earlier Bench Member.

Analysis:
1. The appellant raised concerns that the impugned order did not discuss the submissions made during the arguments, leading to a request for the order to be recalled. However, the Tribunal cited the principle from the case of CIT vs. K. M. Thapar, stating that only the cumulative effect of arguments needs to be mentioned in the order, not every word. The Tribunal emphasized that rectification is not permissible for incidental facts that were not explicitly stated.

2. The appellant also contested the delay in delivering the impugned order, claiming it was issued after six months from the date of hearing. Despite the appellant submitting multiple applications to recall the order, the Tribunal clarified that as per CESTAT rules, the order can be delivered even after six months. The Tribunal found no merit in the delay argument.

3. The Tribunal addressed the issue of criminal cases filed by the appellant against the earlier Bench Member who heard the case. Without delving into specifics, the Tribunal stated that the legal process would proceed accordingly. The Tribunal did not provide further details on this matter.

4. After hearing both parties and examining the record, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was passed on merit. Citing precedents from various cases, the Tribunal highlighted that an oversight or incidental fact omission does not warrant rectification or a fresh order. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no apparent mistake in the impugned order and dismissed the application for Review of Appeal (RoA).

5. In the final decision, the Tribunal rejected the RoA application, affirming that the impugned order was passed correctly after due consideration and that there was no basis for the appeal. The Tribunal concluded the judgment with the observation that the law would take its course regarding the criminal proceedings mentioned, without further elaboration on the matter.