TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court denies application to correct final order, emphasizing limited power to rectify mistakes.</h1> <h3>CCE, Tirunelveli Versus M/s. The India Cements Ltd.</h3> The Bench rejected the application for correction of the final order despite acknowledging the importance of rectifying court mistakes to prevent unjust ... Rectification of mistake - final order was not dictated in the open court in the presence of the consultant who appeared for the case but only pronounced as dismissed and detailed order was to follow since an abbreviation DOF is recorded against the order recorded in order sheet as dismissed - Held that:- It is appreciable that no one should suffer for the mistake of the court. But this Bench is handicapped to totally reverse the result of the appeal what that was recorded in final order referred to at the outset since the only power vested with the Tribunal is to rectify the mistake apparent from record but not to review its own order without power of review vested with it. Therefore for no rectifiable mistake apparent from the record - Rectification denied. Issues:1. Discrepancy in final order leading to confusion.2. Request for correction of final order.3. Application of settled law regarding court mistakes.Analysis:Issue 1: The respondent's counsel raised concerns about a discrepancy in the final order, where the appeal of Revenue was recorded as allowed despite being pronounced as dismissed in open court. The counsel pointed out that the order sheet showed alterations with initial dismissal being cut and replaced with an allowed status, causing distress to the client due to the conflicting results.Issue 2: The respondent's counsel requested the correction of the final order to reflect the actual pronouncement of dismissal in the open court. He argued that the abbreviation 'DOF' against the recorded dismissal indicated that a detailed order was pending, emphasizing that the final order should align with the initial pronouncement to avoid injustice to the respondent.Issue 3: Citing the precedent set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a relevant case, the respondent's counsel highlighted the principle that no one should suffer due to a court's mistake. He urged the court to rectify the order to dismiss the appeal, emphasizing the need to uphold fairness and prevent unjust consequences resulting from errors made by the court.The Revenue contended that the order passed was not reversible by the Bench, indicating their stance on the matter.In its decision, the Bench acknowledged the importance of preventing individuals from bearing the brunt of court mistakes. However, it clarified its limitations, stating that the Tribunal's power extends to rectifying mistakes apparent from the record but does not include the authority to review its own order without specific review powers. Consequently, in the absence of a rectifiable mistake evident from the record, the application for correction was rejected, maintaining the final order's status as recorded despite the discrepancies highlighted by the respondent's counsel.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
