Appellant's Request for Rectification Dismissed Upholding Lower Authority Decision

The appellant's request for rectification of an apparent mistake in the final order was dismissed by the bench, upholding the lower appellate authority's decision that the order-in-original was lawfully served on the appellant on 17.2.2004. Despite the appellant's arguments challenging the date of communication, the bench found no grounds for review. The tribunal emphasized the importance of timely communication and rejected the appellant's attempt to introduce additional evidence through a ROM application. The final order was upheld, and the appellant's appeal was ultimately dismissed.

---

---

Issues:
1. Rectification of apparent mistake in final order under Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act.
2. Date of communication of the order-in-original to the appellant.
3. Lawful service of the order on the appellant.
4. Rebuttal of statutory presumption under Section 153 of the Customs Act.
5. Review of the finding that the order-in-original was served on the appellant on 17.2.2004.
6. Discretion of the tribunal to recall the final order for fresh decision.

Analysis:

1. The appellant filed an application seeking rectification of an apparent mistake in the final order passed by the bench in a customs appeal. The lower appellate authority dismissed the party's appeal as time-barred due to a delay in filing against an order of adjudication. The bench confirmed that a certified copy of the order-in-original was served on the appellant on 17.2.2004, upholding the lower authority's decision. The appeal was dismissed in line with the Supreme Court's decision in Singh Enterprises vs. CCE, Jamshedpur.

2. The appellant argued that the delivery of the order-in-original to a former employee could not be considered lawful service on the appellant. The appellant presented affidavits to challenge the date of communication, claiming awareness of the order only in 2009. Despite the appellant's contentions, the bench found no grounds to review the date of service, considering the circumstances and evidence presented.

3. The bench emphasized the importance of the date of communication of the order-in-original to the appellant. The lower appellate authority had based its decision on the acknowledgment of receipt dated 17.2.2004, concluding that the appeal was significantly delayed. The bench confirmed the receipt date and noted the lack of evidence to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 153 of the Customs Act.

4. The appellant's attempt to introduce additional evidence through a Review of Order Made (ROM) application was dismissed by the bench. The bench highlighted that such evidence could not be considered for rectifying an apparent mistake in the final order. The appellant failed to provide documentary evidence to support their claims, leading to the dismissal of the ROM application.

5. The tribunal upheld the final order, emphasizing that no mistake, especially an apparent one, was found in the decision-making process. The bench clarified that a mistake apparent from the record should be easily discernible without requiring extensive arguments. The appellant's failure to rebut the statutory presumption and provide substantial evidence led to the dismissal of the application.

6. The bench, after careful consideration of all submissions, maintained the decision to dismiss the appellant's appeal. The discretion of the tribunal was not exercised to recall the final order for a fresh decision, as the grounds presented by the appellant were deemed insufficient to warrant a review. The ROM application was ultimately dismissed by the bench.

---