9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (10) TMI 731 - AT - CustomsRectification of Mistake - error apparent on the face of record - HELD THAT - When the appeal was listed on 18.03.2024, after hearing the learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue, the final order was passed on the appeal considering that there was a contradiction in the earlier final order dated 18.01.2018. Having upheld the contentions of the Revenue, the logical conclusion would have been that the appeal filed by the Revenue was required to be allowed whereas it was wrongly stated to be dismissed . Considering the scope of rectification of mistake, as has been settled by plethora of decisions that the rectification of mistake does not imply a complete re-hearing of the matter and it only requires that the error found apparent on record, needs to be rectified. In terms thereof, we passed the final order rectifying the error as noted in the order dated 05.04.2019 and consequently, allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Apex Court in Master Construction Co. (P) Ltd. vs. State of Orissa 1965 (12) TMI 108 - SUPREME COURT was pleased to observe that an error which is apparent from record should be one which is not an error which depends for its discovery on elaborate arguments on questions of fact or law. The second limb of the application that suitable order may be passed on account of monetary limits in view of the Instructions dated 02.11.2023 issued by the CBIC cannot be the scope of application for recalling of the order as it would amount to opening the Pandora box in all the disposed of matters. This is not the correct stage as the appeal has already been disposed of by a final order. There are no error in our order dated 18.03.2024, whereby the appeal was finally disposed of.
Issues:
Rectification of Mistake Application Analysis: The Revenue filed an appeal against an Order in Appeal dated 31.03.2014, which was disposed of by the Tribunal on 18.01.2018. The Revenue sought rectification of a mistake due to a contradiction in the order. Despite multiple listings and opportunities, the respondent failed to appear, leading to a final order on 18.03.2024 allowing the Revenue's appeal. The respondent later filed a miscellaneous application citing absence due to urgent family work, but the Tribunal found the explanation lacking. The respondent's counsel argued that the appeal was not decided on merits, but the Tribunal clarified that the rectification of mistake did not require a complete re-hearing. The Tribunal referenced legal precedents to support its decision, emphasizing that rectification is for patent mistakes, not debatable points. The respondent's application to recall the order was based on a misunderstanding that the order was passed solely on the rectification application. The Tribunal clarified that the order was based on the appeal itself and the rectification scope. The respondent's argument regarding a monetary limit change and a Supreme Court decision was deemed irrelevant at this stage since the appeal had been finally disposed of. The Tribunal highlighted that overlooking an interim order does not render a judgment void. The application was dismissed, and the Tribunal upheld the final order dated 18.03.2024. The Tribunal emphasized that the rectification process is not meant for re-hearing the case but for correcting apparent errors on record. The application's second aspect regarding monetary limits was deemed inappropriate post-final disposal of the appeal. In conclusion, the Tribunal found no error in the final order and dismissed the respondent's application. The Tribunal's decision was based on legal principles governing rectification of mistakes and the scope of such applications. The Tribunal clarified the purpose of rectification and emphasized that it does not entail a complete re-hearing of the case but aims to correct obvious errors on record. The respondent's arguments regarding the appeal's merits and monetary limits were deemed irrelevant post-final disposal of the appeal. The Tribunal's decision was in line with established legal precedents and principles governing rectification applications.
|
