2005 (4) TMI 330 - AT - Customs

Tribunal rejects rectification application by Wavin India Ltd. on duty abatement & unjust enrichment.

The Tribunal, comprising S/Shri S.S. Kang and V.K. Agrawal, rejected the application for rectification of mistake by M/s. Wavin India Ltd. regarding ... Rectification of mistake application Issues: Application for rectification of mistake in Tribunal's Final Order regarding abatement of duty under Section 22 of the Customs Act and unjust enrichment under Section 27 of the Customs Act.The judgment pertains to an application for rectification of mistake in the Tribunal's Final Order by M/s. Wavin India Ltd. concerning the abatement of duty under Section 22 of the Customs Act and unjust enrichment under Section 27 of the Customs Act. The appellant argued that the matter primarily related to abatement of duty for damaged and deteriorated goods under Section 22, making unjust enrichment provisions inapplicable. They contended that the Department had already allowed abatement of duty by reducing the value of imported goods by 30%, indicating an acceptance of the abatement issue. On the contrary, the respondent, represented by Sh. B.L. Goyal, asserted that the Final Order focused on refunding the duty paid in excess before the abatement, thus justifying the application of Section 27 concerning unjust enrichment.The Tribunal, comprising S/Shri S.S. Kang and V.K. Agrawal, analyzed the arguments presented by both parties. It was highlighted that the scope of rectification of mistake under Section 129B of the Customs Act is limited, as established in the case law of Dinkar Khindria Dinesh Khindria v. CC, New Delhi. The Tribunal emphasized that rectification is only permissible for mistakes apparent from the record necessitating amendment of the order. Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in S. Balram, Income-tax Officer Company v. Volkart Brothers, the Tribunal clarified that rectification is not a means to challenge the Tribunal's order but is reserved for correcting obvious and patent errors. Therefore, the applicants were advised to pursue an appeal in the Appellate Forum if they disagreed with the Tribunal's decision, as rectification is not a disguised form of appeal where the order is re-heard and re-decided. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the application for rectification of mistake and rejected it.