CESTAT Mumbai Rejects Application for Rectification of Mistakes in Appeal Order

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI rejected an application for rectification of mistakes in the order and a request for a fresh hearing of the appeal. The Tribunal found that the application did not establish specific submissions made during the hearing were not recorded or considered in the previous order. The Tribunal emphasized that rectification is to correct errors apparent on the face of the record and concluded that there was no error in the order that required rectification. Consequently, the application for rectification was rejected, providing a final decision on the matter.

---

---

Issues involved:
Application for rectification of mistakes in the order and request for recall of the order for fresh hearing of the appeal.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI, delivered by Member (Technical) C J Mathew and Member (Judicial) Shri Ajay Sharma, addressed an application for rectification of mistakes in the order and a request for a fresh hearing of the appeal. The Learned Counsel for the applicant argued that certain submissions made during the hearing were not recorded or considered by the Tribunal in the previous order. The relief sought was for the recall of the order and a fresh hearing of the appeal. The Tribunal noted that the present application was for rectification of mistakes, which, in normal circumstances, cannot set the clock back on the proceedings unless the entire order is faulty. The Counsel failed to establish the specific submissions made during the hearing and instead focused on the eligibility for a refund of duty liability.

During the proceedings, the Learned Authorised Representative was heard. The Tribunal emphasized that the instrument for rectification is to correct errors apparent on the face of the record. Despite a cursory reference in the written submission to the plea of refund of additional duties of customs, the Tribunal found no reason to accept the contention that the findings in the impugned order needed to be reheard. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that there was no error in the order that required rectification, and thus, the application for rectification was rejected. The judgment was dictated in court, providing a clear and final decision on the matter.

---