9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (6) TMI 638X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l in its Order dated 11-6-08 to consciously follow the ratio of the Larger Bench of the Jurisdictional Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in preference to the decision of the Tribunal’s Larger Bench. In our considered view, judicial discipline requires that a Bench of the Tribunal should follow the ratio of the decision of a Superior Court in preference to the decision of a lower Court or Tribunal and therefore, in our view, the Order passed by the Tribunal on 11-6-2008 is correct and legal. - application for rectification of mistake rejected. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted by the Tribunal while passing the earlier Order dated 11-6-2008, as the same refers to and relies on certain decisions in respect of which the Appellants were not given any opportunity to deal with the same. He also says that the Tribunal has made a mistake in not following the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Margra Industries Ltd. v. CC, New Delhi - 2006 (202) E.L.T. 244 (Tri.-L.B.) = 2008 (10) S.T.R. 81 (Tribunal-LB) and in not referring the matter to a Larger Bench of the Tribunal while disagreeing with it. He cites the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Paras Laminates (P) Ltd. - 1990 (49) E.L.T. 322 (S.C.) in this connection. He also cites the decision of the Larger Bench ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s v. Lal Chand Anand and Others - 1986 (23) E.L.T. 530 (Tribunal); and Tonira Pharma Ltd. v. CCE, Surat - 2009 (237) E.L.T. 65 (Tri.-Mumbai), to say that Tribunal has power to rectify mistakes with reference to only Final Orders disposing of an appeal passed under Section 35C(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as laid down in Section 35C(2) and not in respect of any other Order such as the Order dated 11-6-2008, which was not a Final Order but was merely a Miscellaneous Order. He also argues that the Appellants are seeking review of the earlier Order dated 11-6-2008 of the Tribunal passed by another Bench and such a power of review is not available with the Tribunal as has been held in several cases. 4. On a query from the Bench, Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the statutory provisions. The power to rectify mistake, which has been interpreted to mean error apparent on the face of record, has been outlined in the statute under Section 35C(2) of the Act. As has been held in the Orders of the Larger Benches of the Tribunal in the case of Lal Chand Anand (cited supra) and Hico Enterprises (cited supra), the Tribunal can rectify mistakes only in respect of final orders passed under Section 35C(1) of the Act disposing off appeals and that the power of rectification is not available to rectify interim or Miscellaneous Orders such as the one which has been passed in this case by another Bench on 11-6-2008. 6. Secondly, the relief that the Appellants are seeking through this Rectification Applicatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o some of the judgments which the Appellants were not given any opportunity to deal with. We find that the decision of the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Jain (supra), as admitted by the learned Advocate before us, was one of the referred-to decisions in the Order of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Margra Industries (supra), which was cited by the Appellants themselves and therefore, the Appellants cannot be said to be unaware of the same. 8. In view of the foregoing, we have no option but to reject the present Miscelllaneous Application for the reasons that we have no power to review the Miscellaneous Order dated 11-6-08 passed by the Tribunal in the guise of rectification of mistake a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
