2010 (6) TMI 701 - AT - Central Excise

Applications seeking order recall dismissed for lack of merit. Financial difficulties & absence not sufficient reasons for review.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications seeking the recalling of the order dated 7-1-2010, emphasizing that mere disagreement with previous decisions does ... Recall/review of order - recall sought on the ground that the provisions of law were not properly appreciated while deciding the matter, various judgments sought to be relied upon were not taken into consideration and Department even ignored board’s circular dated 2-1-02. Held that: - It is settled law that, the question of recall of an order can arise only when there is error apparent on the face of the record or when mistake is committed by the Tribunal itself which if allowed to be remained on record could result in irreparable loss or injury to the parties. Merely because particular view is not in consonance with the view taken by some other Benches, that itself cannot be a ground for review. There is no error apparent disclosed in the order, there is no cause for recall of the said order. Mere financial difficulty for the party to challenge the order by way of appeals cannot be a ground for review of the order. Application dismissed. Issues:1. Application for recalling of the order dated 7-1-2010.2. Proper appreciation of provisions of law.3. Consideration of various judgments and circular.4. Error apparent on the face of the record.5. Financial difficulty as a ground for review.Analysis:1. The applicants filed applications seeking the recalling of the order dated 7-1-2010 passed in Excise Appeal No. 4023 of 2006 and 3212 of 2007. The grounds for the application were based on the alleged improper appreciation of the provisions of law, failure to consider various judgments, and the Department's disregard of a board's circular dated 2-1-02. The Tribunal clarified that the question of recalling an order arises only in the presence of an error apparent on the face of the record or a mistake by the Tribunal leading to irreparable loss. Mere disagreement with the view taken by other Benches does not warrant a review. The Tribunal noted that the decisions now relied upon were not presented during the initial consideration, and an incorrect interpretation of the law does not constitute an error on the face of the record.2. The Tribunal found no error apparent in the order and determined that there was no justification for its recall. It emphasized that financial constraints for challenging an order through appeals do not qualify as grounds for review. The inability of the appellants to attend the proceedings during the disposal of the matter was raised as a concern. However, the Tribunal stated that even if there was a misinterpretation of the written submissions filed by the appellants, it would not warrant a review but rather consideration by the appellate authority.3. Consequently, the applications for recalling the order were dismissed as the Tribunal did not find any valid reasons for a recall. The Tribunal highlighted that the applications failed to meet the criteria for a review, and therefore, they were disposed of accordingly.