2018 (5) TMI 163 - AT - Customs

Rectification of mistake - case of applicant is that while formulating the opinion as recorded at para 6 of the order, this Tribunal has considered certain aspects of the pleas raised but has not considered all the arguments advanced while arriving at the conclusion recorded at para 9 of the order - Held that - Tribunal after considering all aspects of the case and after hearing both sides and going through the records/evidences, arrived at the conclusion that the appeal filed by Liladhar T. Khusiliani was devoid of merit. The contention of the appellant now that if all the evidences are considered again including the reasoning and arguments made in the written submissions, the conclusion would be different - ROM application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of mistake application seeking reconsideration of evidences and arguments in the order dated 18.8.2015.

Analysis:
The judgment involved an application for rectification of mistake (ROM) claiming an error apparent on the face of the order dated 18.8.2015. The applicant argued that the Tribunal did not consider all the arguments advanced while arriving at the conclusion. On the other hand, the Revenue's representative contended that the Tribunal had already considered all aspects of the case, heard both sides, and arrived at a conclusion based on the evidence on record. The Revenue emphasized that reconsidering all the evidence and arguments would amount to a review of the order, which is not within the Tribunal's jurisdiction as per established legal principles, citing the decision in the case of Commissioner of central Excise, Belapur Vs, RDC Concrete (India) P. Ltd 2011 (270) ELT 625 (SC).

The Tribunal, after considering the submissions from both sides, found merit in the Revenue's argument. It was noted that revisiting all the evidence and arguments as requested by the applicant would indeed amount to a review of the order, which the Tribunal is not empowered to do. The Tribunal highlighted that it had already considered all aspects of the case, heard both parties, and examined the records and evidence before arriving at the conclusion that the appeal was devoid of merit. The Tribunal reiterated that entertaining the ROM application would go against the principles established by the Supreme Court, as illustrated in the case of RDC Concrete (India) Pvt. Ltd.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the rectification of mistake (ROM) application, emphasizing that reassessing the evidence and arguments at this stage would amount to a review of the order, which falls outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The decision was pronounced in court, bringing closure to the matter.