2016 (7) TMI 1337 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal denies rectification request, requiring clear errors for correction, not re-argument.

Chamunda Engineering Works Versus Commnr. of C. Ex. & S.T., Ahmedabad

The Tribunal dismissed the miscellaneous application seeking rectification of errors in its order, stating that the alleged errors were not apparent but ... Rectification of mistake - review of an order - Held that: - The so-called errors pleaded by the applicant are not “errors apparent on record” and what is sought is a review of the order which is not sanctioned by law. We also find no apparent errors in the findings of the Tribunal - the ROM application is liable to be rejected - decided against applicant. Issues involved: Rectification of errors apparent on record in the Tribunal's order.Analysis:The case involved a miscellaneous application filed by M/s. Chamunda Engineering Works and others seeking rectification of errors in the Tribunal's order. The appellant's advocate argued that certain findings in the order were factually incorrect, specifically related to the presence of machinery at the premises and the clubbing together of clearances of different units. The advocate contended that the reliance on a Panchnama dated 7-2-2005 was erroneous as it was contested by the appellant. Additionally, the advocate highlighted the lack of findings on the aspect of limitation.On the other hand, the authorized representative for Revenue vehemently argued that the Tribunal had thoroughly examined all evidence before passing the order. He emphasized that the applicant was attempting a re-hearing of the appeal through the rectification application, which was not permissible. The representative pointed out specific paragraphs in the Tribunal's order and the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) to support the thorough examination of facts. The issue of limitation was raised, suggesting that the extended period might apply due to suppression of facts and intention to evade duty.After considering both sides' submissions and examining the records, the Tribunal found merit in the arguments presented by the authorized representative for Revenue. The Tribunal concluded that the alleged errors were not apparent on record but required a re-evaluation of facts and detailed arguments, which was beyond the scope of rectification. Citing relevant case law, the Tribunal emphasized that rectification should address obvious and patent mistakes, not debatable points or incorrect applications of law. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the rectification application, stating that it sought a review of the order, which was not permitted by law.In the final decision, the Tribunal dismissed the miscellaneous application, affirming that the rectification sought was not justified. The order was pronounced in the Court on 19-7-2016, bringing the legal proceedings to a close.