2018 (11) TMI 1282 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of mistake - scope of rectification - no error apparent on the face of record - Held that - There is no apparent mistake being pointed out by the applicants. All the grounds relate to the merits of the case and assessment of the evidences available on record. It is the applicant s matter that various statements have not been examined in the correct prospective thus leading to a wrong decision. The rectification of mistake application is very limited, which covers the mistakes, which are apparent on the face of the records and do not require long drawn process of arguments by both the sides - It is well settled law that applicants cannot seek review of the order in the garb of rectification of mistake. Inasmuch as there is no apparent mistake, pointed out by the ld. Advocate, in the order, except the one relatable to the merits of the case, there are no reasons to allow the present applications - ROM Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of mistake applications against a Tribunal order.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to the disposal of rectification of mistake applications arising from a common order of the Tribunal dated 19.1.2018, where the appeals of all the applicants were rejected. The applicants, represented by their respective advocates, contended that there were mistakes in the assessment of evidence, leading to an incorrect decision. However, the Tribunal noted that rectification of mistake applications is limited to errors apparent on the face of the records and not for reviewing the order based on merits. The Tribunal emphasized that applicants cannot seek a review under the guise of rectification of mistake. Since no apparent mistake was identified, except those related to the merits of the case, the applications were rejected. The decision was made after considering arguments from both sides and examining the grounds presented by the applicants. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of adhering to the limited scope of rectification of mistake applications and the established legal principle that such applications cannot be used as a means to challenge the merits of the original order. Therefore, the rectification applications were dismissed, maintaining the original order of rejection of the appeals.