2005 (4) TMI 95 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Rectification application vs. application for review under Section 129B of the Appellate Tribunal - Jurisdiction to review an order - Comparison between review and rectification.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around a rectification application filed after an order was passed by the CEGAT allowing an appeal against penalty due to lack of direct evidence implicating an individual as the owner of goods. The rectification application was dismissed by the CEGAT on the grounds that it was actually an application for review, not rectification, as claimed by the appellant.

The appellant's counsel argued that the order sought to be rectified was passed within the four-year limitation period applicable at that time, even though the limitation period was later extended to six months. However, the court did not delve into this question and focused on the essence of Section 129B, which empowers the Appellate Tribunal to rectify its own order if any mistake apparent from the record is brought to its notice by any party.

The court highlighted the distinction between rectification and review, emphasizing that the power under Section 129B(2) is akin to Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, allowing for the amendment of an order to correct a mistake evident from the record. On the other hand, review jurisdiction must be explicitly conferred by statute, and it involves reconsidering the entire finding and passing a fresh order based on new evidence or materials alleged to have been omitted.

The judgment clarified that if a piece of evidence was not considered and a new finding is required, it constitutes a case for review, not rectification. Review involves setting aside the original order and issuing a new order after reevaluation, whereas rectification is limited to correcting apparent mistakes in the existing order without altering the substance of the decision.

Ultimately, the court found no fault in the CEGAT's decision to dismiss the rectification application, affirming that it was, in fact, a review application. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the interim order was vacated, with no costs imposed on any party.