2013 (11) TMI 35 - AT - Customs

Rectification of the Order Held that - The Revenue has now filed misc. application stating that the delay was not for 279 days and it was only for 22 days as there was calculation error, thus, there was a mistake apparent on the face of the order - the Revenue has filed the rectification application after a period of six months from the date of the said order - In view of the provisions contained under Section 129 (B) (2) of Customs Act, 1962 the Tribunal can rectify the mistake apparent on the face of the order In the present case, the application was filed after six months, thus the same is not maintainable. - rectification application dismissed. - Decided against the revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of rectification application filed by Revenue beyond six months from the date of the order.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata, delivered by Dr. D.M. Misra, addressed the issue of the maintainability of a rectification application filed by the Revenue beyond the stipulated period of six months from the date of the original order. The Revenue sought rectification of an order dated 02.08.2012 which dismissed their appeal. The Respondent's advocate raised a preliminary objection regarding the timeliness of the rectification application, stating that any mistake apparent on the face of the order could only be rectified within six months from the date of the order. The Revenue acknowledged that the rectification application was filed after the six-month period. The Tribunal examined the records and noted that the appeal was dismissed due to a delay of 279 days, which the Revenue claimed was actually only 22 days due to a calculation error. However, the Tribunal emphasized that the rectification application was filed after the prescribed six-month period.

The Tribunal referred to Section 129 (B) (2) of the Customs Act, 1962, which allows for rectification of mistakes apparent on the face of the order if brought to the Tribunal's notice within six months from the date of the order. In this case, since the rectification application was filed after the six-month limit, the Tribunal deemed it not maintainable. Despite the Revenue's argument regarding the miscalculation of the delay period, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to the statutory time limit for seeking rectification. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue, highlighting the significance of timely rectification applications in accordance with the statutory provisions.

In conclusion, the judgment underscores the critical importance of adhering to the prescribed time limits for seeking rectification of orders under the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the Revenue's application serves as a reminder of the legal requirement to bring mistakes apparent on the face of the order to the Tribunal's attention within the specified timeframe. This case highlights the significance of procedural compliance and adherence to statutory provisions in rectification applications before the Appellate Tribunal.