9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (1) TMI 502 - AT - Central ExciseRectification of Mistake - mistake apparent on the face of record - Section 35FF of Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT - The Revenue wants to challenge the merits of the order by way of rectification of mistake. The said act of the Revenue is not appreciable as the same shall amounts the review of own order which is not permissible in law. The issue whether the application of rectification of mistake is maintainable or not has been discussed by this Tribunal in the case of JK CARD BOARD INDUSTRY, JAMMU KASHMIR VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CE, JAMMU KASHMIR JAMMU KASHMIR 2021 (1) TMI 337 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH where it was held that the distinction between the appeal and application for rectification of mistake is quite obvious and even a wrong finding of fact or in law needs to be challenged in an appeal before the appellate authority and cannot be rectified by recall of order in terms of Section 35 C (2). There are no merit in the applications of rectification of mistake - application dismissed.
Issues:
1. Rectification of mistake in the final order passed by the Tribunal 2. Challenge to the merits of the order by the Revenue 3. Maintainability of rectification of mistake application Analysis: 1. The judgment deals with an application filed by the Revenue for rectification of mistake in the final order passed by the Tribunal. The Ld. AR representing the Revenue failed to point out any apparent mistake on record. The Tribunal had relied on previous decisions in similar cases, including one involving Sanvik Asia Limited and another concerning Sony Pictures India Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal, represented by Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial), did not find any mistake apparent on record. The Tribunal emphasized that challenging the merits of the order through rectification of mistake amounts to a review of its own order, which is impermissible in law. 2. The judgment delves into the issue of whether the application for rectification of mistake is maintainable or not. Reference is made to a previous case, J K Card Board Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jammu & Kashmir, where the Tribunal discussed the scope of such applications under Section 35C (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal cited the settled law that a mistake apparent on record must be obvious and patent, not requiring a lengthy process of reasoning to establish. It highlighted that rectification cannot be done for a debatable point or an erroneous view of law. The Tribunal observed that the distinction between an appeal and an application for rectification of mistake is clear, emphasizing that a wrong finding of fact or law should be challenged through an appeal, not rectification. 3. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's application for rectification of mistake, stating that the application sought reconsideration of evidence and facts, which is not the purpose of Section 35C (2). The Tribunal's decision was based on the principle that rectification cannot involve a reappreciation of evidence or a review of legal views taken earlier. The judgment concluded by dismissing the applications for rectification of mistake and disposing of the miscellaneous applications accordingly. This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the issues of rectification of mistake, challenging the merits of an order, and the maintainability of such applications under the relevant legal framework.
|
