1993 (1) TMI 163 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the application for Rectification of Mistake (ROM) is maintainable.
2. Whether there was a failure of principles of natural justice.
3. Whether the dismissal of the appeal as time-barred was proper.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the ROM Application:

The appellants filed an application for rectification of mistake under Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, arguing that a mistake had crept into the record due to a communication gap. They requested the Tribunal to rectify this mistake and grant them a chance to represent their case in a personal hearing. The Tribunal had to determine whether this application was maintainable.

Upon review, it was found that the Tribunal had dismissed the appeal on the grounds of a two-day delay in filing and the absence of an application for condonation of delay. The learned Technical Member argued that the ROM application was not maintainable because the Tribunal does not have the power to review its own orders under the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal can only rectify mistakes apparent from the record, not recall or rehear cases. The learned Judicial Member, however, believed that the Tribunal could recall its order in exceptional cases where there was a violation of natural justice. Eventually, the majority concluded that the ROM application was not maintainable.

2. Failure of Principles of Natural Justice:

The appellants contended that they were not aware of the delay in filing the appeal and that their counsel, Ms. Amrita Mitra, did not inform them about the Tribunal's direction to file an application for condonation of delay. They argued that the short adjournment granted by the Tribunal did not provide them sufficient time to comply with the direction, resulting in a denial of natural justice.

The learned Judicial Member agreed with the appellants, noting that the short adjournment did not allow reasonable time for compliance and that the Tribunal should have granted a longer adjournment. This failure to provide sufficient time was seen as a violation of the principles of natural justice.

Conversely, the learned Technical Member and the third member on reference held that there was no failure of natural justice. They pointed out that the Tribunal had informed the appellants' counsel about the delay during the first hearing, and it was the counsel's responsibility to take appropriate steps. The Tribunal's refusal to grant further adjournment on 17-12-1990, when the consultant appeared without a Vakalatnama, was also deemed appropriate.

3. Dismissal of the Appeal as Time-barred:

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as time-barred due to a two-day delay in filing and the absence of an application for condonation of delay. The appellants argued that they were not aware of the delay and that the Tribunal should have granted an adjournment to allow them to file the necessary application.

The learned Judicial Member believed that the dismissal was a mistake apparent on the record and that the Tribunal should recall its order to prevent a failure of natural justice. However, the learned Technical Member and the third member on reference disagreed, stating that the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal was correct and that there was no mistake apparent on the record.

Conclusion:

The majority concluded that the ROM application was not maintainable and that there was no failure of principles of natural justice. The dismissal of the appeal as time-barred was deemed proper. Consequently, the application for rectification of mistake was dismissed.