2014 (4) TMI 1064 - AT - Central Excise

Appellant's Rectification Application Dismissed as Review Not Permitted

CADCHEM LABORATORIES Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH

CADCHEM LABORATORIES Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH - 2015 (317) E.L.T. 388 (Tri. - Del.) Issues Involved:1. Whether the application filed by the appellant constitutes a valid request for rectification of mistakes apparent from the record.2. Whether the Tribunal has the power to review its own final order.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Whether the application filed by the appellant constitutes a valid request for rectification of mistakes apparent from the record:The appellant contended that certain mistakes crept into the final order due to delays in the disposal of the appeal. Specifically, the appellant argued that the product in question was an animal feed supplement, but the final order misinterpreted it. Additionally, the appellant claimed that the interpretation of whether animal feed includes animal feed supplements was not addressed. The appellant sought to rectify these alleged mistakes through a Miscellaneous Application.However, the Tribunal found that the application was essentially a review application disguised as a request for rectification of mistakes. The Tribunal emphasized that rectifiable mistakes must be apparent from the record and should not require extensive examination of material facts or contentions. The Tribunal concluded that the contentions raised by the appellant called for a detailed examination, which is beyond the scope of rectification and more akin to a review.2. Whether the Tribunal has the power to review its own final order:The Tribunal reiterated that it does not possess the power of review under the law, as it becomes functus officio (having fulfilled its function) after passing an order. The Tribunal cited several precedents, including Major Chandra Bhan Singh and Harbhajan Singh v. Karam Singh, to support the principle that review is a creature of statute and cannot be entertained in the absence of a statutory provision.The Tribunal further referenced the case of Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimal Nath Narithania, which reinforced that a review application is not maintainable unless expressly permitted by statute. The Tribunal also noted that an error apparent on the face of the record must be obvious and not require a long process of reasoning or consideration of extraneous matters.The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's application sought to review the entire order and decide the appeal again on merit, which is not permitted by law. The Tribunal emphasized that rectification of mistakes should be based on errors that are patent and apparent from the record without requiring elaborate arguments or investigations.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's application for rectification of mistakes, stating that it was essentially a review application, which is not permissible under the law. The Tribunal underscored that it does not have the power to review its own final order and that rectifiable mistakes must be apparent from the record and not require extensive examination or reasoning. The application was deemed misconceived and devoid of merit, leading to its dismissal.