Court rejects petition seeking rectification under Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944

The court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition seeking rectification under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The petitioner alleged errors in the order related to duty payment for cigarettes. The court held that the findings were not erroneous and did not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record. Emphasizing the need for clear and indisputable mistakes for rectification, the court concluded that the petitioner failed to establish grounds for invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India and dismissed the petition.

---

---

Issues:
1. Rectification of order under Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
2. Error apparent on the face of the record.
3. Jurisdiction for rectification under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash an order and direct modification under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The case involved allegations of clandestine manufacture and removal of cigarettes without duty payment, leading to a demand for duty and penalties. The first respondent partially allowed the appeal, finding no clandestine removal but confirming double transportation without duty payment. The petitioner filed a rectification application under Section 35C(2) alleging lack of evidence and errors in the order.

2. The first respondent dismissed the rectification application, stating there was no error apparent on the face of the records. The petitioner contended that the findings were not in line with the evidence and sought rectification under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Tribunal upheld the decision, emphasizing that interpreting evidence differently does not constitute an error. The petitioner argued for rectification based on non-consideration of evidence from certain companies, but the court found no error apparent on the record.

3. The court referenced precedents to define "error apparent on the face of the record," emphasizing that it must be obvious and patent, not a debatable point of law or fact. The petitioner's argument that verification from specific companies would have supported their case was rejected, as the Tribunal had conclusively held based on available evidence. Precedents highlighted the need for clear mistakes that are incapable of debate for rectification. The court concluded that the petitioner failed to establish grounds for invoking Article 226 and dismissed the writ petition.

---