9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (3) TMI 76X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Customs, New Delhi had absolutely confiscated two kgs. of foreign marked gold, which had been seized from Shri Dinesh Khindria. Two Kgs. of foreign marked gold brought by Mohit Thakor, a passenger coming from abroad, which was sought to be cleared through Dinkar Khindria, another passenger coming from abroad, was also absolutely confiscated. Penalty of Rs. 15,000/- was imposed each on Dinkar Khindria, Mohit Thakor and Dinesh Khindria. The appeal filed by Shri Mohit Thakor with regard to his part in the above mentioned common order-in-original, dated 17-8-1993 came-up before the Tribunal in Appeal No. C/1036/93-NRB, and under Order, dated 6-5-1994 the Tribunal held that absolute confiscation of the two Kgs. of foreign marked gold brought by Shri Mohit Thakor (which was sought to be cleared through Dinkar Khindria) was not justified. The said two Kgs. foreign marked gold was allowed to be redeemed on payment of a redemption fine of Rs. 25,000/-. The amount of penalty imposed on Shri Mohit Thakor, the appellant in that case before the Tribunal, was reduced from Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 5,000/-. The appeals filed by Shri Dinkar Khindria and Shri Dinesh Khindria against the same order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Member (J) concurred), had proposed that the said order in the case of Mohit Thakor required to be recalled. The grounds on which it was concluded that there was apparent mistake in the said order were that the Tribunal :- (i) had not stated the entire facts of the case, (ii) had not dealt with the question of ownership of the gold seized and had not considered the plea of Dinkar Khindria, one of the appellants in the present proceedings, and (iii) had not considered the evidence on record along with the facts of retraction of the statements by the persons involved in common proceedings. 4. Under Section 129B(2) of the Act, the appellate Tribunal may, at any time within four years from the date of the order with a view to rectify any mistake apparent from the record, amend any order passed by it under sub-Section (I) of Section 129(B). Such amendments could be made if the mistake is brought to its notice by the Collector of Customs or the other party to the appeal. 5. The power of rectification of mistake under Section 129(B) of the Act is a limited power and this power is restricted to rectification of the mistakes apparent from the record calling for amendment of the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rror and say here is a substantial point of law which stares on in the face, and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be made out. No questions of fact were involved in the decision of the High Court in T.R. Cs 75 to 77 of 1956. The entire controversy turned on the proper interpretation of R. 18 (1) of the Turnover and Assessment Rules and the other pieces of legislation which are referred to by the High Court in its order of Feb., 1956; nor could it be doubted or disputed that these were substantial questions of law. In the circumstances therefore, the submission of the appellant that the order of September, 1959 was vitiated by "error apparent" of the kind envisaged by O.XLVII, R.1, Civil Procedure Code when it stated that "no substantial question of law arose" appears to us to be clearly well founded. Indeed, ld. Counsel for the respondent did not seek to argue that the earlier order of September 1959 was not vitiated by such error." Thus, Section 129B(2) of the Act does not envisage the rectification of an alleged error of judgment. 6. The departmental representative has referred to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Procedure 1908 reads as under :- "Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the Court either of its own motion or on the applicant or any of the authorities." Although Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not couched in similar terms as Section 129B(2) of the Act, reference with regard to the settled position of law is of general application. 7. The order recorded in the case of Mohit Thakor was not an ex parte order. It was also nobody's case that the decision was obtained by fraud or deceit. 8. No mistake as such could be alleged in proceeding with the matters as they are taken-up for hearing by the Bench. The decision in each case has to turn on the evidence let in it. In the case of Karan Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh - AIR 1965 (SC) 1037, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that "each case has to be decided on the evidence led in and this irrespective of any view of the same that might have been taken on different evidence led in another case." 9. On careful consideration of the matter, we hold that a decision which has been validly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
