Tribunal rejects rectification application for grey tyre cord fabrics classification under Heading 59.09.

The Tribunal rejected the application for rectification, upholding the classification of grey tyre cord fabrics under Heading 59.09. It emphasized that rectification is limited to correcting obvious and patent mistakes in the record, not challenging the final decision based on debatable points of law or facts. The Tribunal clarified that rectification does not involve correcting alleged errors of judgment and must be based on mistakes apparent from the record, which was not the case here.

---

---

Issues:
Rectification of mistake in the final order regarding classification of woven grey tyre cord fabrics under the Central Excise Tariff Act.

Analysis:
The appellant sought rectification of a mistake in the final order where the Tribunal classified the grey tyre cord fabrics under Heading No. 59.09 instead of 59.02 as claimed by them. The appellant argued that even if the yarn supplied was not high tenacity, the fabrics should not be classified under Heading 59.09 based on the HSN Explanatory Notes and Board's Circular. They contended that the fabrics should fall under Heading 54.08 according to the HSN Explanatory Notes. Additionally, the appellant pointed out that the Tribunal failed to consider important grounds, such as the running length of the product and previous decisions relied upon by them. They also argued that the test report of samples should only apply to future clearances, not past ones. The appellant relied on legal precedents emphasizing that the Tribunal should rectify any omission of important grounds affecting the appeal's merits.

The respondent opposed the rectification, stating that if two views are possible, the decision made does not constitute a mistake on the face of the record. They referred to a Tribunal decision limiting the power of rectification to obvious and patent mistakes, not debatable points of law or facts. The respondent cited Supreme Court judgments defining error apparent on the face of the record as clear ignorance or disregard of the law, not a mere wrong decision. The respondent emphasized that rectification should not be based on a lengthy and complicated argument but on a clear and patent error.

The Tribunal considered both parties' submissions and clarified that rectification under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act is limited to mistakes apparent from the record. The Tribunal noted that the final order was issued after considering all submissions and that rectification does not involve correcting an alleged error of judgment. The Tribunal emphasized that the rectification of mistake is not a rehearing of the case. The Tribunal cited a Supreme Court case stating that the order must record the relevant reasons for the decision, not necessarily in detail. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the application for rectification, stating that the final decision reached by the Tribunal was not a mistake on the face of the record.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the classification of the grey tyre cord fabrics under Heading 59.09 and rejected the application for rectification, emphasizing that rectification is not an avenue to challenge the final decision but is limited to correcting obvious and patent mistakes in the record.

---