Tribunal denies rectification application citing limited jurisdiction under Section 35C

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai rejected an application seeking rectification of a mistake apparent from its final order. The Tribunal highlighted its limited jurisdiction under Section 35C, especially when a Civil Appeal against its order is pending before the Supreme Court. By emphasizing that the department opted to pursue relief in the higher court, the Tribunal indicated that more than an apparent error was alleged in its order, leading to the rejection of the rectification application.

---

---

Issues:
Rectification of mistake apparent from the record in the final order passed by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to rectify its order under Section 35C vis-a-vis the pending Civil Appeal before the Supreme Court.

The judgment deals with an application seeking rectification of a mistake apparent from the record in a final order passed by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai. The Tribunal had previously rectified a mistake in the cause title in response to the first application by the Revenue. However, in the present application, it was claimed that certain other grounds raised in the previous application were not considered. The Tribunal noted that the department's Civil Appeal against the Final Order was pending before the Supreme Court, and the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to rectify its order under Section 35C is limited. The Tribunal emphasized that the department had chosen to invoke the wider jurisdiction of the apex Court, indicating that they found more than an apparent error in the Tribunal's order. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the present application for rectification.

The issue of the Tribunal's jurisdiction to rectify its order under Section 35C was crucial in this judgment. The Tribunal emphasized that its jurisdiction is limited, especially when a Civil Appeal against its Final Order is pending before the Supreme Court. By noting that the department had opted to pursue a remedy in the Supreme Court, the Tribunal highlighted the implicit acknowledgment that the department found more than an apparent error in the Tribunal's order. This analysis underscores the principle that the Tribunal's authority to rectify its orders is circumscribed, especially when a party chooses to seek redress in a higher court.

---

---