2021 (12) TMI 283 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal dismisses appeal, imposes costs for frivolous application casting aspersions without basis.

The Tribunal rejected the rectification application filed in the form of an appeal memo, citing it as frivolous and unethical for casting aspersions ... Rectification of mistake - frivolous application - costs for frivolous or vexatious proceedings - judicial ethics - per incuriam - binding precedent - letter patent appealRectification of mistake - frivolous application - judicial ethics - binding precedent - Application under Rule on Miscellaneous (ROM) for rectification of the Tribunal's order dismissed as frivolous and an order for payment of costs imposed. - HELD THAT: - The application filed as a ROM was not a true rectification petition but was framed like an appeal memo challenging the Bench for alleged failure to consider or give findings. The applicant relied on certain authorities not placed on record and invoked the notion of orders being per incuriam without there being any finding of non-consideration of binding precedent. The Tribunal observed that certain cited Division Bench decisions and other judgments were not applicable to the facts and that challenging a single member order as per incuriam (instead of seeking a Larger Bench) was contrary to judicial propriety. Having regard to prior Triunal authority condemning such practices, the ROM was found to be frivolous and an abuse of process. In view of these conclusions, the application for rectification was rejected and a cost was considered appropriate to deter similar unethical conduct.ROM application dismissed; applicant directed to pay costs of Rs. 10,000 to the Government Treasury within one month.Final Conclusion: ROM application seeking rectification of the Tribunal's order dismissed as frivolous; costs of Rs. 10,000 imposed on the applicant to be paid to the Government Treasury within one month. Issues:1. Rectification application filed in the form of an appeal memo.2. Allegations against the Bench for not giving any finding or consideration.3. Citation of case laws not placed on record during the appeal.4. Reference to Division Bench judgments and the principle of res judicata.5. Rejection of rectification application and imposition of cost on the Commissioner.Analysis:1. The judgment addresses a rectification application filed in the form of an appeal memo, which is not in line with the required procedure. The application alleged that the Bench failed to give any finding or consideration, and cited case laws not presented during the appeal hearing. The Tribunal noted that the rectification application was frivolous and unethical, as it cast aspersions without basis. The judgment referred to a previous case to emphasize the need to restrain such practices and imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 on the Commissioner for filing the application inappropriately.2. The judgment delves into the issue of allegations against the Bench for purportedly failing to give any finding or consideration. It highlights that the rectification application made references to case laws not part of the appeal record, which were deemed irrelevant to the case at hand. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of maintaining ethical standards in legal proceedings and rejected the application due to its frivolous nature.3. Another aspect of the judgment involves the citation of case laws that were not presented during the appeal hearing. The Tribunal pointed out that the case laws cited were not applicable to the facts of the current case, as they were based on a different scenario involving a refund claim challenging a classification order. By citing irrelevant case laws, the applicant Commissioner sought rectification based on unsubstantiated grounds, leading to the dismissal of the rectification application.4. The judgment also addresses the reference to Division Bench judgments and the principle of res judicata. It notes that the applicant Commissioner considered certain orders as per incurium, contrary to statutory provisions, and sought rectification based on this premise. However, the Tribunal emphasized that no binding precedent was overlooked in the original judgment, and the reference to Division Bench judgments was deemed inappropriate. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to judicial ethics and established legal principles.5. Lastly, the judgment concludes by rejecting the rectification application and imposing a cost on the Commissioner for filing a frivolous application. The Tribunal emphasized that the appeal was dismissed at the admission stage on grounds of limitation and maintainability, not on merits. Despite the case's merit being heard during a personal hearing, the rectification application was considered baseless, leading to the imposition of a financial penalty on the Commissioner.