9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (12) TMI 283 - AT - Central ExciseRejection of application for rectification of mistake - HELD THAT - While rejecting the application for rectification of mistake which is filed on frivolous ground there is a requirement of putting a restraint on such unethical practice of casting aspersions on the findings of the Tribunal without basis in terms of the judgment of this Tribunal passed in the case of COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., JAIPUR-I VERSUS MELCON 2007 (3) TMI 459 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI which is filed by learned AR Shri Sanjay Hasija at Annexure-H of his additional submission dated 10.02.2021 and in imposing a cost on the Commissioner Manpreet Arora for filing such frivolous application stating that the Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the appeal at the admission stage on limitation and maintainability and not on merits despite the fact that the merit of the case was heard during personal hearing dated 05.12.2018 as referred in para 4 and 5 of his order dated 10.05.2019 and a finding to that effect was also given which was noted by this Tribunal in para 3 and 4 of its order dated 16.04.2021. The rectification application is, therefore, dismissed with a cost of ₹ 10,000/- to be paid by the applicant to the Government Treasury within a month of communication of this order.
Issues:
1. Rectification application filed in the form of an appeal memo. 2. Allegations against the Bench for not giving any finding or consideration. 3. Citation of case laws not placed on record during the appeal. 4. Reference to Division Bench judgments and the principle of res judicata. 5. Rejection of rectification application and imposition of cost on the Commissioner. Analysis: 1. The judgment addresses a rectification application filed in the form of an appeal memo, which is not in line with the required procedure. The application alleged that the Bench failed to give any finding or consideration, and cited case laws not presented during the appeal hearing. The Tribunal noted that the rectification application was frivolous and unethical, as it cast aspersions without basis. The judgment referred to a previous case to emphasize the need to restrain such practices and imposed a cost of ?10,000 on the Commissioner for filing the application inappropriately. 2. The judgment delves into the issue of allegations against the Bench for purportedly failing to give any finding or consideration. It highlights that the rectification application made references to case laws not part of the appeal record, which were deemed irrelevant to the case at hand. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of maintaining ethical standards in legal proceedings and rejected the application due to its frivolous nature. 3. Another aspect of the judgment involves the citation of case laws that were not presented during the appeal hearing. The Tribunal pointed out that the case laws cited were not applicable to the facts of the current case, as they were based on a different scenario involving a refund claim challenging a classification order. By citing irrelevant case laws, the applicant Commissioner sought rectification based on unsubstantiated grounds, leading to the dismissal of the rectification application. 4. The judgment also addresses the reference to Division Bench judgments and the principle of res judicata. It notes that the applicant Commissioner considered certain orders as per incurium, contrary to statutory provisions, and sought rectification based on this premise. However, the Tribunal emphasized that no binding precedent was overlooked in the original judgment, and the reference to Division Bench judgments was deemed inappropriate. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to judicial ethics and established legal principles. 5. Lastly, the judgment concludes by rejecting the rectification application and imposing a cost on the Commissioner for filing a frivolous application. The Tribunal emphasized that the appeal was dismissed at the admission stage on grounds of limitation and maintainability, not on merits. Despite the case's merit being heard during a personal hearing, the rectification application was considered baseless, leading to the imposition of a financial penalty on the Commissioner.
|
