2019 (1) TMI 729 - AT - Customs

Rectification of mistake - Tribunal has repeated the same facts which were available in the earlier order of the Tribunal vide which the matters were remanded - Held that - Admittedly, the facts in the earlier remanded matter and the facts in the present order of the Tribunal would remain the same inasmuch as the same were the continuation of the earlier proceedings. The objection of the learned Commissioner, Customs, Noida that the same facts stand repeated in the present order, by no stretch of imagination can be said to be a mistake. The present applications not only refer to any mistake in the order but are frivolous applications, showing non application of mind - ROM application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Rectification of Tribunal order based on repetition of facts in the present order compared to earlier remanded matter.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD involved a case where the Revenue filed three ROM Applications seeking rectification of the Tribunal's Final Order, which rejected the appeals filed by the Revenue. The Revenue contended that the Tribunal repeated the same facts in the present order as in the earlier remanded matter. The Tribunal noted that the earlier remanded matters were held in favor of the assessee by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal clarified that the facts in the earlier remanded matter and the present order remained the same as they were a continuation of the earlier proceedings. The Tribunal emphasized that the objection raised by the Commissioner, Customs, Noida regarding the repetition of facts was not a mistake, as there was no change in the facts when the matters were placed before the Tribunal in the present appeals.

Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that the applications filed by the Revenue did not point out any mistake in the order but were deemed frivolous, indicating a lack of application of mind. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the applications, affirming that the facts in the earlier remanded matter were consistent with the present order, and there was no valid ground for rectification. The judgment highlighted the importance of a thorough review of the grounds for rectification and emphasized the need for substantial errors to warrant such actions. The decision underscored the principle that mere repetition of facts, without any material change or error, does not constitute a valid basis for seeking rectification of a tribunal order.