2015 (10) TMI 1906 - AT - Customs

Rectification of re-export order denied due to absence of mistake; Tribunal upholds original decision.

S.K. ENTERPRISES Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-IV

The Tribunal rejected the rectification of mistake application seeking to convert a re-export order to home consumption. It held that since the initial ... Application for rectification - Conversion of order of re-export to Home Consumption - Foreign supplier refused to accept goods and petitioner has paid entire amount; heavy demmurage charges already incurred - Revenue contended that Tribunal having passed the order have become functus officio and cannot change the order at this stage - Appellant made two alternative prayers; one for re-export and other for home consumption, tribunal has accepted the former; thus no rectification required - Held That:- Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review its own order - Order passed cannot be held to be a mistake on records - Decided in favour of Revenue. Issues: Rectification of mistake application for converting re-export order to home consumption order.Analysis:1. The rectification of mistake application was filed concerning Final Order No. 57720/2013-Cus., where the redemption fine and penalty imposed on the appellant were set aside, allowing re-export of the goods. The appellant sought to convert the re-export order to home consumption due to the foreign supplier's refusal to take back the goods after a long period and the appellant's payment of the entire amount to the supplier, incurring demurrages.2. The opposition to the prayer for converting the order to home consumption was based on the argument that the Tribunal, having passed the order, was functus officio and could not alter it. The learned Jt. CDR contended that since the appellant had made alternative prayers for home consumption and re-export, and the Tribunal accepted the re-export without fines or penalties, there was no mistake in the order that required rectification.3. The Tribunal concurred with the argument presented by the learned Jt. CDR, emphasizing that once the Tribunal had accepted the appellant's prayer for re-export without any fines or redemption, it could not review its own order. It was established that the final view taken by the Tribunal did not constitute a mistake that warranted rectification. The principle that a review of an order cannot be disguised as rectification of a mistake was highlighted.4. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the miscellaneous application and rejected it, affirming that the order for re-export without fines or penalties, as per the appellant's prayer, was final and not subject to rectification. The decision was dictated and pronounced openly in the Court.