2018 (10) TMI 1274 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of Mistake - the appellants contention is that inasmuch as the proceedings against the main appellant was dropped, all the appeals of the co-appellants should have also been allowed - Held that - There are no merits in the above contention of the applicants. The Tribunal examined and appreciated the evidences available in respect of each appellants and based upon the same, the appeals of the present three appellants were rejected while allowing the appeal of M/s.Sofina Fashion. Similarly, the issue of cross-examination cannot be said to be a mistake apparent on the face of the records, requiring any rectification. The entire ground raised in the ROM applications are relatable to the merits of the case - It is well settled law that a mistake requiring any rectification has to be a mistake apparent on the face of the records and any issue which requiring long drawn arguments from both sides cannot be held to be a mistake apparent on the face of the records. ROM application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of mistake in final order.

Analysis:
The judgment addresses three applications seeking rectification of a mistake in the final order dated 09/03/2018. The applications were filed against the same order that allowed the appeal of M/s.Sofina Fashion but dismissed the three appeals of the present applicants. The applicants argued that since proceedings against the main appellant were dropped, all co-appellants' appeals should have been allowed. They also contended that the lack of cross-examination of witnesses was a mistake in the order. However, the Tribunal found no merit in the applicants' contentions. It was noted that the Tribunal had examined the evidence for each appellant separately and based its decision on that. The issue of cross-examination was deemed not to be a mistake apparent on the face of the records.

The judgment emphasized that a mistake requiring rectification must be apparent on the face of the records and cannot be related to the merits of the case. It was highlighted that issues requiring extensive arguments from both sides do not qualify as mistakes for rectification. The Tribunal rejected all three rectification of mistake (ROM) applications, stating that the alleged mistakes were actually related to the merits of the case. Therefore, the applications were not considered valid for rectification.