2018 (10) TMI 1270 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of mistake - Held that - The Bench is responsible for its orders and not for errors committed on the administrative side falling under the purview of the Registry and subordinate to the President in the discharge of its administrative responsibilities. The time of the judicial side should not be tied up in flaws arising on the administrative side. The distinction between the two used to be amply demonstrated in the healthy convention devised for the format of judgments. The table requiring assent of the author of the judgment was a part and parcel of the document emanating from the Tribunal. Unfortunately, and without any consideration of the rationale for its incorporation, and in the usual hurry to deliver cosmetic reforms, this table was proscribed for which instructions were issued despite reservations of several members who are conscious of the relevance, and the importance, of such conventions. We direct Registry to place this matter before the President for restoration of the format - the application for rectification of mistakes is disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of mistake in the order regarding two appeals of M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd against two different orders-in-original.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with an application by the Revenue seeking rectification of a mistake in an order that disposed off two appeals by M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd against two distinct orders-in-original. The issue arose as the description in the record of proceedings only referred to one of the orders-in-original, omitting the other. The Tribunal, burdened with increasing litigation, was requested to rectify the clerical mistake that occurred in the Registry. However, the Tribunal clarified that the responsibility for such alterations lies with the administrative side of the Tribunal, specifically the Registry, and not the judicial side. The judgment emphasizes the need to distinguish between the roles of the Bench and the administrative side, highlighting that errors on the administrative side should not encumber the judicial proceedings.

The judgment underscores the importance of maintaining conventions and formats in judgments, indicating that the table requiring the author's assent was a crucial part of the document. It criticizes the proscription of this table without considering its significance and calls for its restoration. The Tribunal directs the Registry to make the necessary amendments to reflect the disposal by the Bench in this specific instance to prevent any detriment to the applicant. Simultaneously, the Registry is instructed to present the matter before the President for the restoration of the format. Until this is completed, all orders from the Bench will adhere to the previous format. The judgment concludes by stating that applications for rectification should only be brought before the Bench when they pertain to the contents below the table. The application for rectification of mistakes is thereby disposed of, ensuring clarity and adherence to proper procedures in judicial proceedings.