Rectification application dismissed for mistake in adjudicating authority appointment. Lack of evidence cited.

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD dismissed the application for rectification of mistake regarding the appointment of the adjudicating authority in the Final Order. The Tribunal found that the alleged mistake was not apparent on the record as the notification relied upon was not presented during the initial proceedings. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the original order, emphasizing the lack of evidence to support the rectification application.

---

---

Issues: Rectification of mistake in the final order regarding the appointment of the adjudicating authority.

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD, the issue at hand was the rectification of a mistake in the Final Order dated 5-7-2012 regarding the appointment of the adjudicating authority. Despite the absence of representation from the respondents, the Revenue filed an application for rectification, contending that there was a notification appointing the Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Daman to adjudicate the show cause notices issued to the respondents. The Revenue sought the order to be recalled, appeals to be restored, and to be disposed of on merits.

Upon review, the Tribunal noted that in the previous final order, the submissions made by the learned counsel were specifically outlined. The Tribunal also observed that there was no notification appointing the Commissioner as the adjudicating authority for the appeals in question. The notification dated 27-11-2006, which the Revenue relied upon, was not brought to the Tribunal's attention during the previous proceedings. As such, the Tribunal concluded that the alleged mistake was not apparent on the face of the record and that there was no error in the previous order. The Tribunal emphasized that without the notification being produced before them, it could not be assumed that the bench overlooked it, leading to the dismissal of the application for rectification of mistake.

In summary, the judgment upheld the original order, stating that the application for rectification of mistake lacked merit and was subsequently dismissed. The Tribunal's decision was based on the absence of evidence supporting the alleged mistake regarding the appointment of the adjudicating authority, as the relevant notification was not presented during the initial proceedings.

---