2015 (9) TMI 300 - HC - Central Excise

Rectification of mistake - Rectification Application came to be dismissed under the order of the Tribunal dated 05.01.2001 on the ground that the two orders referred to by the department were independent orders and no mistake has crept in the order of the Tribunal. - Held that - An application for rectification is made for the purposes of making corrections of the mistakes in the order of the Tribunal which are apparent. If such application is rejected by the Tribunal, it will not mean that the department has given up its right to seek reference of the question of law, which in the opinion of the department, arise from the order of the Tribunal. - Tribunal was under an obligation to examine as to whether the question of law as sought to be referred to the High Court arise from the order of the Tribunal or not. The Reference Application could not have been dismissed as infructuous only because the rectification application has been dismissed as withdrawn - Tribunal dated 01.06.2001 cannot be legally sustained. It is hereby quashed - Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dismissal of rectification application and subsequent dismissal of Reference Application by Tribunal.
2. Department's contention on the independence of rectification and reference application.
3. Tribunal's obligation to examine the question of law for reference.
4. Legality of Tribunal's order dated 01.06.2001.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the dismissal of a rectification application and the subsequent dismissal of a Reference Application by the Tribunal. The department filed a writ petition against the Tribunal's order dated 01.06.2001, seeking restoration of the Reference Application.

2. The department argued that the rectification application and the Reference Application were independent proceedings. The rejection of the rectification application did not render the Reference Application infructuous. The Tribunal was criticized for ignoring the different considerations for both applications.

3. The High Court emphasized the Tribunal's obligation to assess whether the question of law intended for reference to the High Court actually arose from the Tribunal's order. The Court stated that the Reference Application should not have been dismissed solely due to the rejection of the rectification application.

4. The High Court found merit in the department's argument and concluded that the Tribunal's order dated 01.06.2001 was legally unsustainable. The Court quashed the order, restored the Reference Application to its original number, and directed the Tribunal to reconsider the Reference Application after providing an opportunity for hearing to the concerned parties within eight weeks. The writ petition was allowed based on the observations and directions provided by the Court.