9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (2) TMI 591X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 04, dated 6-12-2004 may be recalled and the proceeding terminated for want of jurisdiction. There is also a prayer to post the matter before a bench on which the under-signed is not a Member. He has raised the following points in justification of his prayer. (1) Initially a common OIA No. 19/2000, dated 10-3-2000 was passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The Hon ble Tribunal in the appeals against the above OIA disposed of only two appeals relating to Shri Soman Sunil Kumar and Shri Alex C. Joseph and the third in the matter of M/s. Mohan Breweries was still pending disposal at that time. An appeal of M/s. Mohan Breweries was disposed by allowing the appeal vide Final Order No. 1679/04, dated 1-11-2004. Under the above circ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ord Denning to buttress his points. The impugned order is full of mistakes apparent on the face of the record as the same has not considered all the grounds in the appeal. 4. I have gone through the submissions made by the learned advocate and also the learned JDR carefully. The power to rectify mistakes apparent on the face of record is given to the Tribunal under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It should be borne in mind that rectification of mistake is different from review. The impugned order of the Tribunal upholds the Order-in-Appeal but has reduced the penalties. However, the learned advocate feels that the Tribunal should have set aside the OIA. If the plea of the learned Advocate is accepted it would amount to rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... advocate has submitted that the impugned order is full of mistakes and the Tribunal has not considered all the grounds raised in the appeal. It is not necessary that all the grounds raised by the appellant should be discussed in the order. It is sufficient if the relevant grounds are discussed and matter decided. In any case when the appellant feels that the order is not legal and proper he cannot file an application for rectification of mistakes. He has to follow the other remedies provided by law. The under-signed would like to indicate the important case laws on the subject of rectification of mistakes. (1) CCE, Vadodara v. Steelco Gujarat Ltd., - 2004 (163) E.L.T. 403 (S.C.) CESTAT - Appellate Tribunal - Review vis- -v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... patent mistake and not something which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning or where two opinions are possible - Decision on debatable point of law also cannot be treated as mistake apparent from the record. [1971 (2) SCC 526 and 1997 (8) SCC 502 followed]. (para 7). (5) Dinkar Khindria v. CC, New Delhi - 2000 (118) E.L.T. 77 (Tri.-L.B.) Rectification of mistake is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an order even if it is not valid, is reheard and redecided -Rectification of mistake applications lies only for patent mistake -Only in a case where the mistake stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a case of rectification of mistake could be mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
