1993 (4) TMI 151 - AT - Central Excise

Issues:
1. Rectification of mistake under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
2. Classification issue regarding Monoblocs.
3. Interpretation of Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules.

Analysis:

1. The judgment involves an application for rectification of mistake under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The applicants sought rectification of errors in the Tribunal's order dated 23-11-1989, specifically pointing out mistakes in para 7 and para 17 of the said order.

2. The first issue raised by the applicants was regarding the classification of Monoblocs. The applicants argued that the Tribunal's failure to consider this issue was an error that needed rectification. They contended that the classification issue could be raised at any stage and cited consistent Tribunal views supporting this stance. However, the Tribunal held that since the issue was not raised before the lower authorities, rejecting it did not constitute a mistake apparent from the record.

3. The second issue involved the interpretation of Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules. The applicants argued that the order passed by the Additional Collector prior to 16-12-1985, with reference to Rule 9(2), was without jurisdiction. They relied on precedents and legal principles to support their argument for rectification. However, the Tribunal emphasized that the issue regarding Rule 9(2) was not raised during the proceedings, and thus, did not qualify as a mistake apparent from the record. The Tribunal highlighted that rectification must address errors evident on the face of the record, not those requiring extensive reasoning or differing interpretations.

4. The Revenue, represented by the JDR, countered the applicants' arguments. They contended that the classification issue and the conclusions drawn in para 17 were based on factual appreciations and not errors requiring rectification. The Revenue emphasized that the Tribunal's conclusions based on facts and interpretations were not subject to rectification as apparent mistakes.

5. After considering the submissions from both sides, the Tribunal concluded that the issues raised by the applicants did not constitute mistakes apparent from the record. The Tribunal reiterated that the power of review is not inherent in rectification of mistakes and that errors must be evident on the face of the record. The Tribunal referenced legal principles and precedents to support its decision, emphasizing that rectification is not a means to review or change interpretations made in the original order.

6. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the application for rectification of mistake filed by the applicants. The Tribunal held that none of the points raised by the applicants qualified as errors apparent from the record, as they were not issues raised during the proceedings or were based on differing interpretations that did not constitute clear mistakes. The decision underscored the importance of rectification addressing only errors evident on the face of the record, not issues requiring extensive reasoning or differing opinions.

← Previous Next →