2018 (6) TMI 989 - AT - Central Excise

CESTAT Mumbai dismisses application for rectification of mistake in final order

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI dismissed a miscellaneous application seeking rectification of a mistake apparent in the final order. The Tribunal ... Rectification of mistake apparent on the face of the record - review/recall of a final order - maintainability of rectification/review application - scope of litigation policy - inclusion of refund matters within litigation policyRectification of mistake apparent on the face of the record - maintainability of rectification/review application - inclusion of refund matters within litigation policy - ROM application seeking recall of final order on ground of mistake apparent on record is not maintainable. - HELD THAT: - The Revenue sought recall of the final order on the basis that an earlier circular (dated 18.12.2015) excluded refund matters from the litigation policy, and therefore the original order required reconsideration. The respondent relied on a later circular dated 4.4.2018 which brought refund matters within the scope of the litigation policy and contended that the original order was passed in accordance with law. The Revenue's representative did not dispute that the later circular covers refund matters. In these circumstances, there is no ground to treat the original order as suffering from a mistake apparent on the face of the record warranting recall or rectification; the matter was decided in accordance with the applicable litigation policy as reflected by the later circular, and the ROM cannot be maintained. [Paras 6]ROM application dismissed; recall/rectification of the final order refused.Final Conclusion: The miscellaneous application for rectification/recall of the final order is dismissed as not maintainable because refund matters are within the litigation policy (as per the later circular) and no mistake apparent on the face of the record has been established. The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI dismissed a miscellaneous application seeking rectification of a mistake apparent in the final order. The Revenue argued that a circular excluded refund issues from the original litigation policy, but the respondent cited a later circular that included refund matters. The Tribunal found the application not maintainable and dismissed it.