Tribunal dismisses Revenue's Rectification of Mistake application, citing no error in original order

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's application for Rectification of Mistake, ruling that the mention of an incorrect Order-in-Original number in the previous order was not an error but a reproduction of a finding from a different order. The Tribunal clarified that the appeal was based on the correct Order-in-Original and concluded that there was no mistake in the original order. Therefore, the Rectification of Mistake application was deemed not maintainable and dismissed on 28/8/2017.

---

---

Issues:
Rectification of Mistake in Tribunal's order regarding incorrect mention of Order-in-Original number leading to confusion in directions for denovo adjudication.

Analysis:
The Revenue filed an application for Rectification of Mistake in the Tribunal's order dated 28.11.2016, which was passed in C/51/05 arising from Order-in-Appeal No.601/2004-MCH dated 08.10.2004. The issue arose as the reference to Order no. S/9-226/GATT/98 SVB dated 07.07.2000 in para 3 of the Tribunal's order was deemed incorrect by the Revenue. They argued that this mistake led to a conflicting situation regarding the direction to be followed for denovo adjudication by the original authority and the Commissioner (A).

The Counsel for the non-applicant/appellant contended that there was no mistake in the order except for the incorrect mention of the Order-in-Original in para 3. The Tribunal carefully considered both sides' submissions and found that the mention of Order no. S/9-226/GATT/98 SVB dated 07.07.2000 in para 3 was not an error but a reproduction of the finding from the Order-in-Original no. S/9-79/GATT/2001 GVC dated 22.02.2002. The Tribunal clarified that the appeal was based on the Order-in-Original dated 22.02.2002, which was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals).

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that there was no mistake in the order dated 28.11.2016, and the Rectification of Mistake application was deemed not maintainable and dismissed. The judgment was pronounced in court on 28/8/2017.

---