Tribunal denies rectification application, upholds referral to Third Member in dispute over fraudulent credit availment

The Tribunal dismissed the rectification of mistake (ROM) application, emphasizing the clarity of the question referred to the Third Member and the appropriateness of the referral in light of the differing opinions expressed by the original Members. The application sought rectification due to a disagreement between Member (Judicial) and Member (Technical) on the sufficiency of evidence regarding fraudulent credit availment. The Tribunal held that the original framing of the question was clear and that the differing opinions justified the referral to the Third Member, ultimately denying the application for rectification.

---

---

Issues:
Rectification of mistake apparent from record in the framing of questions referred to the Third Member.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around a miscellaneous application filed seeking rectification of a mistake apparent from the record in an earlier order. The application arose due to a difference in opinion between Member (Judicial) and Member (Technical), leading to the nomination of a Third Member to resolve the disagreement. The crux of the matter lay in the framing of questions referred to the Third Member, specifically regarding the sufficiency of evidence to establish fraudulent availment of credit. The counsel for the appellant argued that separate questions should have been framed for each credit availed, as detailed findings were provided by both Members on various evidence during the appeal hearing.

The appellant's counsel contended that the Third Member might agree with one Member on certain evidence and with the other on different evidence, necessitating separate questions for each credit availed. The argument was supported by references to legal precedents such as Colourtex v. UOI and Suzlon Infrastructure Ltd. v. UOI. Conversely, the Revenue opposed the application, asserting that the question framed for reference was clear and did not warrant rectification. The Tribunal analyzed the arguments presented, distinguishing the current case from the cited precedents. It emphasized that both Members had given definite conclusions based on the evidence, leading to a legitimate difference in opinion and the subsequent referral to the Third Member.

The Tribunal dismissed the rectification of mistake (ROM) application, highlighting that the counsel's reasoning, if accepted, would necessitate expressing opinions on numerous pieces of evidence in cases of evasion, which was deemed impractical and not aligned with legal intent. The judgment concluded by upholding the decision to dismiss the ROM application, emphasizing the clarity of the question referred to the Third Member and the appropriateness of the referral in light of the differing opinions expressed by the original Members.

---