Rectification of mistake rejected for tampered documents and fraud, with exemplary costs imposed for abuse of process.

The Tribunal rejected a rectification of mistake application because no apparent error on the record was shown. It reiterated that allegations of tampering had been raised during the hearing, the appellant was asked to respond, and the disputed documents were examined by comparing handwriting and signatures under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act. On that basis, the documents were treated as tampered and fraud on the Tribunal was found. The Tribunal further held that the application repeated false allegations rather than identifying any genuine mistake, and it treated the filing as an abuse of process. Exemplary costs were imposed under Rule 41 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rectification of mistake application disclosed any apparent error warranting interference, and whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application with costs on the finding of tampering of documents and fraud.

Analysis: The application assailed the earlier order on the ground that findings had been recorded on fraud and tampering without proper notice and that the appeal had not been fully dealt with. The Tribunal reiterated that the respondent had raised the allegation of tampering during hearing, that the appellant had been called upon to respond, and that the earlier finding was reached after comparing handwriting and signatures on the disputed documents by applying Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act. On that basis, the Tribunal treated the documents as tampered and held that fraud had been practised on the Tribunal. It further held that the rectification petition contained no genuine mistake apparent from the record and amounted instead to repetitive false allegations and abuse of process. Invoking Rule 41 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, the Tribunal found it appropriate to impose exemplary costs.

Conclusion: The rectification of mistake application was rejected, and costs of Rs. 10,000 were imposed on the appellant.

---