1994 (2) TMI 167 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of mistake application regarding the number of witnesses relied upon by the Department, violation of principles of natural justice, and the Tribunal's power to review its own order on cross-examination of witnesses.

Analysis:

1. The rectification of mistake application stemmed from the Tribunal's order, where the applicant sought to modify the figure of witnesses from 864 to 110, arguing that only 110 persons were relied upon by the Department. The Member (Technical) mentioned the need for cross-examination of relied-upon persons and recommended a remand for this purpose. The applicant cited relevant judgments to support the modification request.

2. The respondents contended that there was no mistake in the Tribunal's order, emphasizing the Collector's mention of 864 witnesses in the order and the compliance with principles of natural justice. They argued against the rectification, stating that the application lacked merit and the judgments cited were not relevant to the issue at hand.

3. The Tribunal reviewed the facts, including the Collector's order mentioning 864 witnesses and the necessity for cross-examination. The Tribunal's order was based on the need for cross-examination of all witnesses mentioned by the Collector. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both parties and cited relevant legal principles on the scope of rectification of mistake applications.

4. A difference of opinion among the Members led to a referral to a 3rd Member, who concurred with the need for cross-examination of relied-upon persons. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of considering all facts and circumstances before passing an order and highlighted the limitations on reviewing its own order based on subsequent arguments.

5. The Tribunal concluded that it lacked the power to review its order on the number of witnesses to be examined and dismissed the rectification of mistake application. The decision was based on the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court and the Supreme Court regarding the nature of mistakes that can be rectified and the need for clear and obvious errors in the record.

In summary, the Tribunal upheld its original order for the cross-examination of 864 witnesses, emphasizing the importance of considering all relevant factors before passing a decision and the limitations on reviewing its own orders based on subsequent arguments. The rectification of mistake application was dismissed due to the lack of merit in altering the number of witnesses and the legal principles governing such applications.