2018 (2) TMI 661 - AT - Customs

Rectification of Mistake - error in the first para of the order No. A/89803/17/SMB dt.1.9.2017 that there a mention Thirteen (13) years have passed. But no re-adjudication order has been passed - Held that - the case was made out in the year 2001 therefore even more than 13 years have passed facing the litigation by the appellant. Accordingly, we do not find any error in the order of this Tribunal dt. 1.9.2017 - ROM application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Error in the first para of the order regarding the mention of 13 years passing without a re-adjudication order.

Analysis:
The Revenue filed a ROM application pointing out an error in the first para of the order, stating that "Thirteen (13) years have passed. But no re-adjudication order has been passed." The Ld. Assistant Commissioner representing the Revenue argued that the case was sent for re-adjudication by the Hon'ble CESTAT only on 24/08/2016, so the mention of 13 years was inaccurate. On the other hand, the Respondent argued that the case was initiated in 2001, justifying the 13-year reference. The Tribunal, after considering both sides' submissions, found that the case indeed originated in 2001, making the 13-year reference valid. The Tribunal clarified that the mention of 13 years did not imply it was from the date of the order in 2016. The overall period of litigation confirmed that more than 13 years had passed since the case was initiated in 2001. The Tribunal concluded that there was no error in the order dated 1.9.2017 and that the mention of 13 years did not impact the Revenue or the re-adjudication process. Consequently, the ROM application by the Revenue was deemed not maintainable and was dismissed.

This judgment highlights the importance of understanding the context and timeline of a case when interpreting references to time periods in legal orders. It also emphasizes the need for clarity and precision in legal documentation to avoid misinterpretations and disputes.