1990 (12) TMI 211 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of Mistake (ROM) application pointing out defects in the Tribunal's order, consideration of arguments regarding rehabilitation aids for the handicapped, technical opinions, and relevant provisions of Notification, review of Tribunal's own order, mistake apparent from record, power of Tribunal to review its own order.

Analysis:
The Rectification of Mistake (ROM) application was filed by the appellants highlighting defects in the Tribunal's Order. The appellants contended that the Tribunal did not address the issue of rehabilitation aids for the handicapped and did not discuss technical opinions from experts. The appellants also argued that specific grounds from the Appeal Memo were not considered by the Tribunal. The appellants sought acceptance of the ROM application, citing a previous judgment where similar arguments were not discussed in the Tribunal's order.

The respondent, represented by a JDR, argued that there was no infirmity in the Tribunal's order and no mistake apparent from the record. The respondent emphasized that the ROM application was essentially seeking a review of the order, which the law does not empower the Tribunal to conduct.

The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, examined the facts and circumstances of the case. It noted that all arguments, including technical opinions and relevant provisions, were duly considered and mentioned in the order. The Tribunal referred to a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing that elaborate arguments do not constitute a mistake apparent from the record. The Tribunal held that further arguments at this stage would be improper and cited a High Court ruling that the Tribunal lacks the power to review its own order.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the ROM application, stating that there was no mistake apparent from the record. The Tribunal clarified that the judgment cited by the appellants did not support their position and reiterated that all arguments were taken into consideration before reaching the decision. The Tribunal emphasized that the power to correct mistakes is limited and does not extend to reviewing its own order, as established by legal precedents.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues raised in the Rectification of Mistake application and the Tribunal's decision regarding the review of its own order, emphasizing legal principles and precedents governing such matters.