Apparent mistake in connected appeals justified recall of conflicting orders and a common hearing on the same penalty dispute.

Contradictory final orders passed in connected appeals arising from the same penalty dispute created an apparent mistake where each appeal was disposed of without notice of the other. That inconsistency justified recall of the earlier orders so the assessee's appeal and the Revenue's appeal could be heard together and decided consistently. The applications were allowed only to that extent: the conflicting orders were set aside and the appeals were restored for composite hearing, with no determination on the merits of the penalty issue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the final orders passed in the connected appeals suffered from an apparent mistake warranting recall and fresh hearing.

Analysis: The applications arose from contradictory final orders passed separately in the assessee's appeal and the Revenue's appeal arising out of the same penalty under Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The inconsistency occurred because each appeal was disposed of without notice of the other, resulting in conflicting conclusions on the same penalty issue. In these circumstances, the earlier orders required recall so that both appeals could be heard together and decided consistently.

Conclusion: The apparent mistake was established and the final orders were recalled; the connected appeals were directed to be posted together for final hearing.

Final Conclusion: The applications succeeded only to the extent of setting aside the conflicting orders and restoring the appeals for composite adjudication, without any determination on the merits of the penalty dispute.

Ratio Decidendi: Where separate orders in connected matters give rise to contradictory outcomes on the same issue because each was passed without awareness of the other, the resulting apparent mistake can be rectified by recalling the orders and directing a common hearing.

---