1996 (7) TMI 365 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of typographical error in the final order, consideration of a Supreme Court judgment in the appeal, reliance on a Tribunal judgment without providing an opportunity to rebut, interpretation of a letter in the Tribunal's order.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi involved multiple issues. Firstly, the Department filed a ROM application highlighting a typographical error in the final order. The error was in a sentence that should have read, "The extended period has therefore, been correctly applied." The Tribunal acknowledged the mistake and allowed the ROM application to rectify the error, emphasizing the importance of accurate wording in legal documents.

Secondly, M/s. Illavia Enterprises filed a ROM application raising concerns about the Tribunal not considering a Supreme Court judgment cited during the appeal hearing. The Tribunal clarified that ROM is primarily for rectifying mistakes apparent on the face of the record. Since there was no mention of the Supreme Court decision in the final order and no evidence presented to prove its discussion during the hearing, the Tribunal concluded that there was no mistake to rectify in this regard.

Another issue raised was the reliance on a Tribunal judgment by the Tribunal itself without providing the applicants an opportunity to rebut the findings. The applicants argued that this denial of natural justice violated CEGAT Procedure Rule 35. The Tribunal acknowledged the reliance on the judgment but stated that the limited scope of ROM is to correct mistakes in the order. As there was no mistake apparent on the face of the record regarding this issue, the Tribunal rejected the argument of denial of natural justice.

Lastly, a dispute arose concerning the interpretation of a letter dated 14-10-1993 in the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal observed that the letter did mention the product as an ayurvedic medicine, contrary to the initial interpretation in the order. The Tribunal allowed the rectification of this mistake in the observation related to the letter, indicating that the case could be reheard solely on this aspect.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the Department's application for rectification of the typographical error and partly allowed M/s. Illavia Enterprises' application concerning the observation on the letter dated 14-10-1993. The judgment emphasized the importance of accuracy in legal documents and the limited scope of rectification of mistakes through ROM applications.