2004 (3) TMI 114

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t during the hearings and in the cross-objections filed, they have cited the following judgments : U.O.I. v. Bombay Tyres International Pvt. Ltd. - 1984 (17) E.L.T. 329 (S.C.) Siva Tobacco Co. v. CCE - 1996 (87) E.L.T. 177 (T) Kerala Electric Lamp Works Ltd. v. CCE - 1996 (87) E.L.T. 206 (T) 2. Consultant submits that they are now relying on the following judgments : Bharat Aluminium Co. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rein it has been held that a decision on a debatable point of law or facts is not a mistake apparent from the record and the debatable issue could not be the subject of an order of rectification. Rectification of mistake does not envisage the rectification of an alleged error of judgment. He further pointed out that the Larger Bench in the case of Dinkar Khindria has observed that the Tribunal und .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... appeal in disguise whereby an order even if it is not valid is reheard and re-decided, rectification of mistake application lies only for patent mistakes and only in a case where the mistake stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, it is only in such a circumstance the case of rectification of mistake could be made out. Whereas in the present case .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X