2018 (10) TMI 1481 - AT - Customs

Rectification of mistake - It is impressed upon on behalf of the appellant that it was brought to the notice of the Tribunal that vide letter dated 18.02.2009 the post of officials at Jodhpur-ICD against which the exemption was granted vide Ministry s letter dated 23.05.2006 were regularised/encadred - Held that - We find no infirmity in the Order atleast nothing of the nature which can squarely be covered under the definition of error apparent on record. Even the findings, it makes no difference if the officers posted were from cadre or outsourced by the Department cannot be held to be the error apparent on record. There is no such infirmity in the impugned Final Order which can be called as an error apparent on record to be rectified - application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of mistake in Final Order

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an Application for Rectification of Mistake in Final Order No. 51848/2018 dated 16.05.2018. The matter originated from a Show Cause Notice dated 28.02.2013, initially adjudicated via Order-in-Original dated 30.03.2015. The Tribunal, in Final Order No. 50679/2017 dated 08.02.2017, remanded the case back to the original authority due to the Commissioner's failure to consider guidelines and the appellant's entitlement for exemption. Subsequently, the matter was re-adjudicated by the Commissioner Customs, leading to the impugned Final Order dated 16.05.2018.

The main point of contention revolved around the appellant's liability to pay cost recovery charges for the period from 01.04.2009 to 31.12.2012. The Tribunal initially found a lack of documents presented to the competent authority, prompting the remand. Despite fresh adjudication, the Tribunal, in the impugned order, concluded that no new facts had emerged. The decision on whether to waive or recover the cost recovery charges was deemed at the discretion of the Department/Board.

The appellant contended that the impugned Final Order contained mistakes, particularly regarding the regularisation/encadrement of posts at Jodhpur-ICD, which were granted exemption earlier. However, the Department defended the Order. The Tribunal, after hearing both parties, found no error apparent on record justifying rectification. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal emphasized that rectification is not warranted when it involves re-examining the entire record or questioning the correctness of the order. The judgment highlighted the importance of judicial discipline and the finality of court decisions to maintain public trust in the judiciary.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the application, ruling that there was no identifiable infirmity in the impugned Final Order that qualified as an error apparent on record necessitating rectification. The decision was made after a thorough analysis of the arguments presented by both parties and in adherence to legal principles.