2017 (11) TMI 86 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of mistake - Held that - there is no basis for entertaining the present applications. We are unable to identify any apparent mistake in the final order. The fact remains that the dispute to be resolved has been correctly identified and the material facts are supporting evidences like dates, documents etc. have been examined for a decision. In the name of rectification of mistake, the Tribunal cannot entertain a plea for reviewing the order on reappraisal of such facts/ evidences, in order to arrive at a different decision. There is no apparent mistake to be rectified in the final order - ROM application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of mistake in the final order based on the application of case laws and written submissions not considered by the Tribunal.

Analysis:
The miscellaneous applications sought rectification of a mistake in the final order dated 17.10.2016, based on the application of various case laws and detailed written submissions that were not examined by the Tribunal during the decision-making process. The applicants contended that the Tribunal did not consider their compilation of case laws and written submissions, leading to an error apparent in the order. However, upon careful examination, the Tribunal found that the impugned order was based on the facts available on record and the submissions made by both the appellant and the Revenue. The Tribunal's decision was primarily focused on the facts and evidence regarding the date of commencement of commercial production for claiming area-based exemption under Notification No.50/2003-CE. The Tribunal emphasized that case laws are only relevant when they have an application on the legal principle necessary for resolving the dispute, which was not the case here. The dispute was resolved based on factual appreciation by the Tribunal, and the miscellaneous application's reference to various decided cases did not alter the Tribunal's decision.

The Tribunal further highlighted that the scope for rectification of mistake has been extensively discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a specific case, emphasizing that an error apparent on the face of the record should be clear and not require extraneous matters to demonstrate its incorrectness. The Tribunal reiterated that the decision was a cumulative appreciation of all facts and evidence on record, and it was not necessary to delve into each line of the appellant's submissions. The Tribunal clarified that in the pursuit of rectifying a mistake, it cannot entertain a review of the order based on a reappraisal of facts and evidence to arrive at a different decision. After carefully examining the plea of the applicants, the Tribunal found no merit in the miscellaneous applications as there was no apparent mistake to rectify in the final order. Consequently, the miscellaneous applications were dismissed, and the judgment was pronounced on 28/9/2017.