1990 (5) TMI 117 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of rectification application under Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 against various orders passed by the Tribunal.
2. Interpretation of Section 129B(2) regarding the rectification of orders passed under sub-section (1) of Section 129B.
3. Comparison of legal precedents cited by the applicant and the respondent regarding the maintainability of rectification orders.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with a miscellaneous application seeking rectification of multiple orders passed by the Tribunal under Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The applicant sought rectification of several orders, arguing that a rectification application is maintainable against an order of rectification passed by the Tribunal. The respondent opposed this contention, advocating for the rejection of the application.

2. The Tribunal analyzed Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, which allows for the rectification of any mistake apparent from the record within four years from the date of the order. The provision empowers the Appellate Tribunal to amend any order passed under sub-section (1) of Section 129B to rectify such mistakes. The Tribunal concluded that only orders passed under sub-section (1) of Section 129B are eligible for rectification, while orders passed under sub-section (2) cannot be rectified.

3. The applicant cited legal precedents, including a judgment of the Patna High Court and a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, to support the maintainability of rectification orders. The Patna High Court's ruling emphasized that rectification orders are part of the assessment proceedings and do not have a separate limitation period. The Supreme Court's decision highlighted that rectification can be based on the entire evidence and law applicable to ascertain errors. Based on these precedents, the Tribunal held that a rectification order is part of the assessment proceedings, and the limitation for rectification is counted from the date of the original order rectifying the mistake.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the applicant, holding that a rectification application is maintainable against an order passed rectifying a mistake, as the original order merges with the rectified order in the assessment proceedings.