9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 731X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nue was required to be allowed whereas it was wrongly stated to be dismissed . Considering the scope of rectification of mistake, as has been settled by plethora of decisions that the rectification of mistake does not imply a complete re-hearing of the matter and it only requires that the error found apparent on record, needs to be rectified. In terms thereof, we passed the final order rectifying the error as noted in the order dated 05.04.2019 and consequently, allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Apex Court in Master Construction Co. (P) Ltd. vs. State of Orissa [ 1965 (12) TMI 108 - SUPREME COURT] was pleased to observe that an error which is apparent from record should be one which is not an error which depends for its discovery ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appeal to its original number and directed it to be listed for final hearing. Thereafter, the appeal was listed on several occasions but time was sought by the respondent on one pretext or the other. Though, last opportunity of hearing was granted by an order dated 21.11.2023, the respondent however even on the next two dates i.e. on 02.01.2024 and 16.01.2024 chose not to appear. Even thereafter when the matter was listed on 18.03.2024, none appeared for the respondent and an order was passed after hearing the learned authorized representative appearing for the Department and on perusal of the records of the case. Considering the long time interlude between 2019 when the ROM application was allowed and the appeal having been listed sev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4.2024 clarifying his absence as under: 7. That the counsel for the respondent though reached the Tribunal on 18.03.2024 however, before the matter could be taken up, had to leave for home due to some urgent family work. No details have been furnished in this regard by the learned counsel to show the bonafides of the statement made. Also as per the prevalent practice, an opportunity is granted to mention the matter in the event of any difficulty. There is no reason as to why the learned counsel could not mention the matter either personally or through a proxy counsel to seek time. The learned counsel should have been more cautious and diligent in appearing and arguing the appeal as already per-emptory order had been passed on 02.01.2024. Fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been filed by the respondent on a wrong assumption that the same has been passed on the basis of the application filed by the Revenue i.e. C/ROM/50630/2018 seeking rectification of mistake in the Final Order dated 18.01.2018. Neither the said application was listed on that day nor was it disposed of by us rather the final order was passed on the appeal itself considering the scope under which the ROM order was passed on 5.4.2019. The contents of the entire order dated 5.4.2019 are quoted below:- Heard the parties on the ROM application filed by the Revenue against the Final Order dated 18.01.2018. 2 . The order-in-appeal (impugned order) was passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) had accepted the valuati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tradiction in the earlier final order dated 18.01.2018. Having upheld the contentions of the Revenue, the logical conclusion would have been that the appeal filed by the Revenue was required to be allowed whereas it was wrongly stated to be dismissed . Considering the scope of rectification of mistake, as has been settled by plethora of decisions that the rectification of mistake does not imply a complete re-hearing of the matter and it only requires that the error found apparent on record, needs to be rectified. In terms thereof, we passed the final order rectifying the error as noted in the order dated 05.04.2019 and consequently, allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Apex Court in Master Construction Co. (P) Ltd. vs. State of Oris ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1962) empowers the Tribunal to rectify the order only on mistakes which are apparent from the record . 10. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dinkar Khindria v. Collector of Customs, New Delhi), [ 2000 (118) E.L.T. 77 (T-LB) ] while dwelling with the scope of ROM application had held it to be of limited reach, emphasizing that ROM is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an order even if it is not valid, is reheard and re-decided. It observed that an ROM lies only for patent mistakes, which stares in face and whereof there could reasonably be no two opinions . The Delhi High Court in Deeksha Suri vs. ITAT [1998 (102) E.L.T. 524 (Del.)] took the view that ROM did not contemplate a re-hearing that would have the effect of re- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
