Appeal Dismissed for Lack of Evidence; Recalling Order Denied Based on Subsequent Law Change.

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's appeal for lack of evidence of clearance from COD to litigate. The applicant sought recalling of the order based on a subsequent change in law, but the Tribunal held that rectification cannot be based on subsequent legal developments. The Tribunal referred to a Supreme Court decision and dismissed the applications for recalling the order and rectification of mistake. The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's principle and observation, finding no merit in the applications.

---

---

Issues:
1. Application for recalling Tribunal's Order dated 30-10-2012
2. Application for rectification of mistake apparent on the face of the order

Recalling of Tribunal's Order:
The Tribunal had dismissed the appeal as the applicant failed to show evidence of clearance from COD to litigate the appeal as of the date of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's Order in the case of ECIL v. Union of India. The applicant sought recalling of the order citing a subsequent development in the law regarding the maintainability of appeals without COD clearance. The advocate for the applicant argued for the order to be re-called after rectifying the mistake apparent on record. However, the Tribunal was not convinced by the argument, stating that the principle followed in the order could change with a different view expressed by a Higher Forum or a Co-ordinate Bench subsequently. The Tribunal emphasized that subsequent changes in law cannot be the basis for rectification of an order, referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCEx., Belapur v. R.D.C. Concrete India Pvt. Ltd.

Rectification of Mistake:
The ld. AR for the Revenue contended that subsequent changes in law cannot justify the rectification of the order passed by the Tribunal. Referring to the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commr. of Central Excise, Belapur, Mumbai v. RDC Concrete (India) Pvt. Ltd., the AR argued against the rectification of the order. The Tribunal, following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, particularly the observation at Para 21, found no merit in the miscellaneous applications and accordingly dismissed them.

Separate Judgement:
No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.

---