2000 (5) TMI 287 - AT - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
1. Rectification of Mistake (ROM) in the Tribunal's final order.
2. Applicability of the Bombay High Court judgment.
3. Compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
4. Jurisdiction and binding nature of High Court judgments.
5. Relevance of judgments under different enactments.
6. Scope and limitations of rectification applications.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Rectification of Mistake (ROM) in the Tribunal's final order:
The applicant filed an application to rectify a mistake in the Tribunal's final order. The Tribunal had directed the applicant to deposit Rs. 30 lakhs within three months. The applicant's request for modification of the stay order was rejected, and the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The applicant argued that a mistake had occurred and sought rectification.

2. Applicability of the Bombay High Court judgment:
The applicant cited the Bombay High Court judgment in B.D. Steel and Traders v. U.O.I., arguing that the Tribunal should have followed this judgment as the applicant was within the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court. The judgment stated that dismissal of an appeal for non-compliance with a stay order condition should not occur without hearing the petitioner, emphasizing the principles of natural justice.

3. Compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to non-compliance with Section 35F, which mandates pre-deposit before hearing an appeal. The applicant argued that the Tribunal should have decided the appeal on merits, citing the failure of natural justice principles.

4. Jurisdiction and binding nature of High Court judgments:
The applicant contended that the Tribunal is bound by the jurisdictional High Court's decisions and should have followed the Bombay High Court judgment. The Tribunal, however, relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Navin Chander Chhotelal, which upheld the rejection of appeals for non-compliance with pre-deposit requirements under similar provisions in the Customs Act.

5. Relevance of judgments under different enactments:
The applicant argued that the Supreme Court's judgment in Navin Chander Chhotelal was distinguishable as it pertained to the Customs Act, not the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal noted that the provisions under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act are similar to Section 129(1) of the Customs Act, making the Supreme Court's ruling applicable.

6. Scope and limitations of rectification applications:
The respondent argued that the scope of rectification is limited to mistakes apparent on the record and does not allow for rehearing or rewriting orders affecting the case's merits. The Tribunal cited the Delhi High Court's decision in Deeksha Suri v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which held that rectification does not permit review jurisdiction indirectly. The Tribunal concluded that no apparent mistake existed in its final order, rejecting the ROM application.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and relevant case laws, concluded that no mistake had crept into its final order. The application for rectification of mistake was rejected, emphasizing adherence to Section 35F of the Central Excise Act and the binding nature of the Supreme Court's ruling in Navin Chander Chhotelal. The Tribunal upheld its decision to dismiss the appeal for non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement.

← Previous Next →