2000 (3) TMI 76 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the decision in the case of Mohit Thakor should be recalled.
2. Whether the appeals of Dinkar Khindria and Dinesh Khindria should be reheard along with Mohit Thakor's appeal.

Summary:

Issue 1: Recall of Mohit Thakor's Case Decision
The Tribunal considered whether the decision in the case of Mohit Thakor, reported in 1994 (72) E.L.T. 865, should be recalled. The original order dated 17-8-1993 by the Collector of Customs, New Delhi, had absolutely confiscated two kgs. of foreign marked gold from Dinesh Khindria and imposed penalties on Dinkar Khindria, Mohit Thakor, and Dinesh Khindria. The Tribunal had allowed redemption of the gold on payment of a fine and reduced the penalty on Mohit Thakor. The appeals by Dinkar Khindria and Dinesh Khindria were heard separately, and it was proposed that the decision in Mohit Thakor's case be recalled due to unaddressed vital questions of law and fact.

Issue 2: Rehearing of Appeals
The Tribunal examined whether the appeals of Dinkar Khindria and Dinesh Khindria should be reheard along with Mohit Thakor's appeal. The Larger Bench heard arguments regarding the recall of the order in Mohit Thakor's case, with the advocate for the appellants arguing that the order affected their interests and was passed without hearing them. The departmental representative contended that there was no apparent mistake warranting rectification.

Legal Analysis:
The Tribunal analyzed the scope of rectification u/s 129B(2) of the Act, which allows for amending orders to rectify mistakes apparent from the record. The Tribunal emphasized that rectification is limited to obvious and patent mistakes, not debatable points of law or facts. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decisions in S. Balaram v. Volkart Brothers and Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh to underline that rectification does not cover errors of judgment or debatable issues.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the decision in Mohit Thakor's case was validly made and not open for review on the grounds of alleged errors in fact or law. The Tribunal has no power to recall an order under the guise of rectification of mistake. The observations by the Bench hearing separate appeals were against judicial propriety, and a coordinate Bench should not sit in judgment over another Bench's order.

Disposition:
The Tribunal decided that the appeals of Dinkar Khindria and Dinesh Khindria should be heard by the regular Bench after proper notice to the appellants and the Revenue. The reference was disposed of with instructions to post the appeals before the regular Bench.