2020 (10) TMI 634 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of Mistake - According to learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, there are some contradictions in the order of the Tribunal and the said contradictions have been mentioned in the instant application - HELD THAT - The grounds raised by the applicant are not sufficient for any kind of rectification. It is settled legal principle that the Tribunal cannot take up exercise on re-appreciating the evidences and to embark on an act of reviewing the decision under the guise of rectification of mistake. An error apparent on the face of the record means an error which strikes on the mere looking and does not need long drawn-out process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions. Such effort should not require any extraneous matter to show its incorrectness. To put it differently, it should be so manifest and clear that no court would permit it to remain on record. While applying the guiding principles in the facts of the present case in my opinion, there is no error apparent from the record calling for rectification. ROM application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of Mistake (ROM) application against a final order passed by the Tribunal.

Analysis:
The applicant filed a ROM application against the final order passed by the Tribunal, citing contradictions in the order. The applicant claimed that a decision in another case involving Sparkon Engineering, which was relevant, was not considered by the Tribunal. The Authorized Representative for the Revenue supported the Tribunal's order, stating that all relevant facts were adequately addressed. The Tribunal reserved the order after the hearing and the written submissions were filed. The decision related to Sparkon Engineering was filed after the written submissions. The Tribunal noted that the decision was not referred to during the hearing or filed with the written submissions. The Tribunal held that the facts mentioned in the order were relevant and no mistake was apparent on the face of the record. The Tribunal emphasized that the grounds raised by the applicant were not sufficient for rectification. It was stated that the Tribunal cannot re-appreciate evidence or review decisions under the guise of rectification. The Tribunal concluded that there was no error apparent from the record requiring rectification, and thus dismissed the ROM application.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key arguments presented by both parties, the Tribunal's assessment of the situation, and the legal principles applied in determining the outcome of the ROM application.