1985 (5) TMI 190 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Application for amendment of an order under Section 35(2) of the Central Excises & Salt Act.
2. Interpretation of Section 35C(2) regarding rectification of mistakes apparent from the record.
3. Grounds for claiming rectification based on trade notice and a judgment of the Bombay High Court.
4. Dissenting opinion on the jurisdiction of a bench to hear an application for amending an order passed by another bench.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an application filed by M/s. Shree Laxmi Textile Mills seeking an amendment of an order dated 6-7-1984 under Section 35(2) of the Central Excises & Salt Act. The application argued that duty should have been paid at a lower rate based on a trade notice and a lower quantity manufactured. The Tribunal considered the scope of Section 35C(2) in rectifying mistakes apparent from the record. It was established that errors to be rectified must be obvious and manifest, not requiring extensive reasoning. The Tribunal cited precedents to differentiate between powers of review/revision and rectification under the Act.

The applicants presented three grounds for rectification, but the Tribunal found them debatable and not apparent from the record. The grounds included reliance on a trade notice and a judgment of the Bombay High Court. The Tribunal noted that these grounds were not raised during the original appeal as the appellants were unaware of them at the time. It was concluded that these grounds did not meet the criteria of being mistakes apparent from the record, as they required external investigation and interpretation beyond the existing record.

A dissenting opinion was presented regarding the jurisdiction of a bench to hear an application for amending an order passed by another bench. The dissenting member argued that the application directly sought to amend the previous order and questioned the logic of allowing such applications. The dissent emphasized that no bench should entertain applications to modify orders passed by other benches, even for rejection, when the original bench is available. The dissenting member declined to pass any order on the application, highlighting the potential implications of allowing such amendments.

In conclusion, the majority of the Tribunal dismissed the application for amendment, emphasizing that the grounds presented did not constitute mistakes apparent from the record. The judgment underscored the importance of clarity and specificity in seeking rectification under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, highlighting the need for errors to be readily discernible from the existing record without the need for extensive investigation or external references.