TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the application for rectification of mistake, filed while a reference to a third member was pending, disclosed any apparent error warranting interference; (ii) Whether, under Section 129C(5) of the Customs Act, 1962, a difference of opinion between members of the Tribunal may extend to factual issues.
Issue (i): Whether the application for rectification of mistake, filed while a reference to a third member was pending, disclosed any apparent error warranting interference.
Analysis: The power to rectify a mistake is narrow and is not a power of review. It is confined to correcting an obvious or apparent error on the face of the record and does not permit fresh scrutiny of the entire record or reconsideration of the merits. The challenge in substance sought reconsideration of the Tribunal's approach while the matter was already pending before the third member, and the grievance could be raised in the pending reference or in any subsequent challenge to the final Tribunal order. No substantial question of law arose from the dismissal of the rectification application.
Conclusion: The rectification application was rightly rejected and no interference was warranted.
Issue (ii): Whether, under Section 129C(5) of the Customs Act, 1962, a difference of opinion between members of the Tribunal may extend to factual issues.
Analysis: The expression "any point" in Section 129C(5) was read broadly in the context of the Tribunal's appellate function and the statutory scheme for majority decision-making. The provision was held not to be confined to pure questions of law, and the Court accepted that a difference of opinion may, in an appropriate case, relate to facts as well. Section 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was distinguished, and the Tribunal was reminded that factual differences should be resolved with caution and judicial discipline so that appeals attain finality efficiently.
Conclusion: A difference of opinion under Section 129C(5) can extend to factual matters as well.
Final Conclusion: The appeal disclosed no substantial question of law and was dismissed, while the Court also clarified the breadth of the Tribunal's power to refer points of disagreement, including factual issues, to a third member.
Ratio Decidendi: Rectification jurisdiction is limited to apparent mistakes and cannot be used as a substitute for review, and the phrase "any point" in Section 129C(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 is broad enough to include factual disagreement between Tribunal members.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
