2001 (10) TMI 876 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal limits rectification to correcting errors, not reassessment or review

JS. KHALSA STEELS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH

The Tribunal rejected the application for rectification of mistake in the Final Order, emphasizing that rectification does not allow for re-assessment or ... Rectification of Mistake Issues involved:Rectification of mistake in the Final Order of the Tribunal.Analysis:The application filed for rectification of mistake in the Final Order raised several key points. The appellant argued that the Final Order contained errors apparent on its face, including discrepancies in production capacity, peak load time restrictions, and verification of daily production. The appellant also contested the findings regarding disposal of ingots by consignees, power consumption, and the alleged clandestine removal of goods. The advocate highlighted violations of natural justice, lack of cross-examination opportunities, and issues with evidence collection. References were made to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's decisions for recalling orders and extending benefits to the assessee. The appellant emphasized that the Tribunal failed to consider various submissions, evidence, and discrepancies in the case.The respondent opposed the prayer for rectification, arguing that the power of rectification is limited to correcting obvious and patent mistakes, not debatable points. Citing legal precedents, the respondent contended that the Tribunal's Order was passed after due consideration of submissions and evidence. The respondent relied on judgments emphasizing that rectification is not possible for debatable issues and that the Tribunal cannot review its validly passed orders. The respondent argued that the rectification sought by the appellant goes beyond the scope of correcting accidental omissions and mistakes.The Tribunal, after considering both sides' submissions, rejected the application for rectification of mistake. It was noted that the application essentially sought a re-assessment and re-decision of the appeal itself, which falls outside the scope of rectification under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act. Referring to the precedent set by the Larger Bench, the Tribunal reiterated that rectification does not entail re-hearing or re-deciding an order, especially on debatable points of law or facts. The Tribunal emphasized that rectification of mistake is not an avenue for recalling validly passed orders or reviewing decisions. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that if the findings or submissions were erroneous, the appropriate recourse for the appellant would be to pursue the matter in a higher forum rather than seeking rectification.This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key arguments presented by both parties, the legal precedents cited, and the Tribunal's reasoning for rejecting the application for rectification of mistake in the Final Order.