Court sets aside rejection order, directs Tribunal on rectification under Section 129B(2)

The Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the order rejecting the miscellaneous petition and directing the Tribunal to delete conclusive observations, remand the matter for a fresh decision, and complete proceedings promptly. The Court emphasized that rectification under Section 129B(2) should be for apparent mistakes visible from the record, not for revising orders, and upheld the Judicial Member's view on rectification in this case.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding classification of product as computer software. Tribunal's power under Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 for rectification of apparent mistakes.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a public limited company with an export-oriented unit, challenged the Tribunal's order on the classification of their product as computer software. The Tribunal, after considering expert opinions, remanded the matter for de novo proceedings due to lack of effective opportunity for the petitioner to explain their stand. However, the Tribunal later concluded that the product was not computer software, denying the petitioner's benefit claim under a relevant notification.

The petitioner filed a miscellaneous petition requesting the Tribunal to amend its order under Section 129B(2) of the Act. The Tribunal's decision was split, with the Judicial Member favoring rectification due to an apparent mistake, while the Technical Member disagreed. A third party concurred with the Technical Member, leading to the rejection of the petition, which was challenged in the writ petition.

In analyzing the Tribunal's power under Section 129B(2), legal precedents were cited, emphasizing that rectification is for apparent mistakes visible from the record, not for revising orders. The Court highlighted that the mistake should be clear without elaborate argument or investigation. Mistakes under this provision are not limited to clerical errors but must be evident from the record.

Referring to a Supreme Court case, the Court cautioned against liberal interpretations leading to instability in administration. In the present case, the Court found that the Tribunal erred by giving a conclusive finding on a technical issue it had remanded for reconsideration. The Judicial Member's view on rectification was upheld, emphasizing that the mistake was visible from the records and did not require extensive reasoning.

Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, setting aside the order rejecting the miscellaneous petition. The Tribunal was directed to delete the conclusive observations, remand the matter for a fresh decision in line with its earlier directive, and complete proceedings promptly. No costs were awarded in this matter.

---