1993 (2) TMI 199 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of Mistake (ROM) in Tribunal's Order, Violation of Principles of Natural Justice, Setting aside Order of Collector (Appeals), Correctness of Tribunal's Decision, Consideration of High Court Judgment.

Analysis:
1. The case involves an application under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 for Rectification of Mistake (ROM) in the Tribunal's Order setting aside the Order-in-Appeal of Collector (Appeals) and allowing the appeal of Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneshwar. The ROM application argues that the Tribunal erred in condoning the violation of natural justice by the Assistant Collector without issuing a show cause notice.

2. The ROM application highlights that crucial matters were not brought to the Tribunal's attention during the appeal, including the independence of adjudications related to Classification Lists and existing revised assessments. The application argues that the Tribunal exceeded the appeal's scope by confirming the revision of Classification Lists, which was beyond the Department's prayer.

3. The Senior Counsel representing the applicant contends that the Tribunal's decision to set aside the Order of Collector (Appeals) was erroneous as it went beyond the Department's appeal grounds. The Counsel emphasizes the need to correct the mistake and restore the Order of Collector (Appeals) concerning other Classification Lists.

4. The Tribunal's consideration of the High Court judgment and revised assessments is challenged by the Senior Departmental Representative. It is argued that these documents were not part of the record and cannot be the basis for rectification. The Representative asserts that the Tribunal's decision to set aside the Order of Collector (Appeals) was justified as the Assistant Collector was following the Tribunal's order.

5. The Senior Counsel cites legal precedents to support the argument that obvious mistakes in orders can be corrected. The Counsel maintains that the Tribunal's error in setting aside the Order of Collector (Appeals) is apparent and should be rectified under Section 35C(2) of the Act.

6. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments from both sides, concludes that the judgment of the High Court and revised assessments were not part of the record and cannot be considered for rectification. The Tribunal finds no error in its previous order and rejects the ROM application due to the lack of new material presented during the appeal.

7. The Tribunal emphasizes that the decision-making process must be based on the record before it and not on external documents or judgments not presented during the appeal. The application for rectification fails as the new material was not part of the original record, and no error is found in the Tribunal's decision based on the information available during the appeal.

In summary, the Tribunal rejects the application for rectification of mistake as the new material presented was not part of the original record, and no error is found in the Tribunal's decision based on the information available during the appeal.