2013 (3) TMI 548 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of mistake versus Review of order - Limited scope under Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that - In absence of power to review to discover the mistake, if any crept in record, Revenue s prayer for recalling of the appeal for substitution of earlier order of the Tribunal by a fresh decision is not permissible. Following various decisions of Apex Court, rectifiable mistake apparent from the record has been explained in that case. Where microscopic analysis is not required to notice mistake from record but is mere apparent that only can be rectified. Therefore, prayer of Revenue is rejected.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to recall its order.
2. Scope of rectification of mistake under Central Excise Act, 1944.
3. Power of the Tribunal to review its own order.

Analysis:
1. The Tribunal addressed the issue of its jurisdiction to recall its order. It clarified that the Tribunal does not have the power to recall its order as it is not an Appellate Court with all the powers of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Tribunal highlighted that its powers are limited under the Central Excise Act, 1944 to rectify a mistake apparent from the record. The application by the Revenue did not demonstrate any mistake on the face of the record that could be rectified without an elaborate exercise to discover the same. The Tribunal emphasized that it cannot review its own order or recall it for substitution by another order.

2. The Tribunal further discussed the scope of rectification of mistake under the Central Excise Act, 1944, citing the case of Mahalaxmi Cable Industries. It explained that a rectifiable mistake apparent from the record is one that does not require a microscopic analysis to notice but is clearly visible. In the absence of the power to review and discover any mistake in the record, the Tribunal concluded that the Revenue's request to recall the appeal for substitution of the earlier order by a fresh decision is not permissible. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's prayer for recalling the order.

3. In the final analysis, the Tribunal upheld its decision to reject the Revenue's prayer for recalling the order. It emphasized that the Tribunal does not have the authority to recall its order or review it for substitution by another order. The Tribunal's ruling was based on the limited scope of rectification of mistakes under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the absence of power to review its own orders. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in open court, concluding the legal proceedings on the matter.