2018 (7) TMI 1541 - AT - Customs

Rectification of Mistake - The first error that has sought to be rectified is name of the respondent which is mentioned in the order dated 07-11-2016 as M/s S V Technologies Pvt Ltd , whereas in the impugned order it is mentioned as M/s S V Medical Technologies Pvt Ltd. - Held that - Since the correct name needs to be mentioned, we rectify the error by stating that respondent s name shall be read as M/s. S V Medical Technologies Pvt Ltd - The application for rectification of mistake to that extent stands allowed. Recall of order - the issue involved in this case is regarding classification and as per Board circular dated 17-12-2015, the classification refund issues are excluded from the coverage of the said circular of the monetary limit - Held that - Since the final order dated 07-11-2016 is dismissing appeal only on policy of non-litigation on monetary ground and the issue being of classification, we recall order and direct the Registry to list the appeal for disposal in its due course for deciding issue on merits. ROM disposed off.

Summary

Issues: Rectification of mistake in the respondent's name in the final order and recall of the impugned order for reclassification issue.

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Hyderabad, the application was filed for rectification of a mistake in the final order dated 07-11-2016. The respondent was unrepresented, but due to the narrow compass of the issue, the case was taken up for disposal even in the absence of representation. The error sought to be rectified was the incorrect name of the respondent mentioned in the order as "M/s S V Technologies Pvt Ltd" instead of "M/s S V Medical Technologies Pvt Ltd." The tribunal rectified the error by stating the correct name as "M/s. S V Medical Technologies Pvt Ltd," allowing the application for rectification of mistake to that extent.

Furthermore, it was mentioned in the application that the impugned order needed to be recalled as the issue involved in the case pertained to classification, which was excluded from the coverage of a Board circular dated 17-12-2015 regarding monetary limits. The final order dated 07-11-2016 dismissed the appeal based on the policy of non-litigation on monetary grounds, despite the issue being related to classification. Therefore, the tribunal decided to recall the order and directed the Registry to list the appeal for disposal in its due course for deciding the issue on its merits. The matter was disposed of accordingly by the tribunal.