2024 (3) TMI 938 - AT - Customs

Seeking rectification of an alleged mistake - error apparent on the face of record or not - submission in the applications is that this Tribunal committed an error because this Tribunal was competent to decide but had not decided the question of jurisdiction - HELD THAT - These applications seeking rectification of mistake are misconceived. The appellants were represented by a learned counsel who made submissions on their behalf. Needless to say, that when a learned counsel makes submissions, the court has to presume those to be on the instructions of the appellants. After arguing the appeal on merits and partly succeeding and partly failing in the appeal, the appellant then decided to hire a new counsel to find fault with the submissions made by the previous counsel and further alleging that this Tribunal committed a mistake in proceeding on the basis of the submissions made by the previous counsel. It is also incorrect to say that this Tribunal did not follow the directions of the High Court and had not applied its mind on the question of jurisdiction. It had not only applied its mind but also recorded in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Final Order the question of jurisdiction not only with respect to the judgment in M/S MANGALI IMPEX LTD., M/S PACE INTERNATIONAL AND OTHERS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 2016 (5) TMI 225 - DELHI HIGH COURT , the review petition filed by the Revenue and the further retrospective amendments made by Finance Act, 2022. Considering the judgments and the subsequent amendments, if it has to be decided if the officer issuing the SCN had jurisdiction or not in this case, it can only be done on the basis of the submissions made by both sides. Both sides did not want to press the question of jurisdiction and therefore the matter was decided on merits and it was decided so. The Tribunal can rectify if there is a mistake apparent on record. In this case, there are no mistake at all in Final Order, let alone, an error apparent on record. Therefore, the applications deserve to be dismissed and are dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved: Rectification of mistake in Final Order regarding jurisdiction of the officer issuing the Show Cause Notices (SCN).

Summary:
The appellants filed applications for rectification of an alleged mistake in the Final Order, seeking examination of the jurisdiction of the officer issuing the SCN. The Tribunal had directed the original authority to maintain status quo pending the final decision of the Supreme Court in a related case. The High Court set aside the Tribunal's earlier order and directed a fresh decision on merits. Both parties chose to argue the matter solely on merits, forgoing the question of jurisdiction. The appellants later claimed they were unaware of this decision due to their counsel and sought rectification based on jurisdictional grounds.

The Tribunal considered the submissions and records, concluding that the rectification applications were misconceived. It noted that the appellants were represented by a counsel who made submissions on their behalf, which were presumed to be on instructions. The Tribunal emphasized that legal proceedings cannot be reopened based on new counsel challenging previous submissions. It asserted that it had considered the jurisdiction issue in light of relevant judgments and amendments but could only decide based on the arguments presented by both sides. As neither side pressed the jurisdiction issue during arguments, the matter was decided on merits as agreed.

The Tribunal found no mistake in its Final Order and dismissed the rectification applications, emphasizing that there was no error apparent on record. The applications were therefore rejected, and the decision was pronounced in open court on 19/03/2024.