Tribunal's power to recall an order for apparent mistake upheld; supervisory interference was not warranted.

Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act, read with Rule 41 of the CEGAT Procedure Rules, was treated as empowering the Tribunal to rectify a mistake apparent from the record by recalling an earlier order and directing rehearing where the order had been passed under a demonstrable misapprehension. The Court distinguished such corrective procedural action from an impermissible review on merits: the Tribunal could not reopen a concluded matter merely because a different view was possible, but it could act to prevent miscarriage of justice and secure the ends of justice. Supervisory interference under Article 227 was declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal had power under Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Rule 41 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 to recall its earlier order and direct rehearing on finding a mistake apparent from the record, and whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The power conferred by Section 129B(2) is not confined to a narrow clerical correction but extends to amendment of an order to rectify a mistake apparent from the record. The Tribunal also possesses procedural or incidental power, reinforced by Rule 41, to make such orders as are necessary to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process. The distinction between review on merits and procedural review was applied: where an order has been passed under a misapprehension or contains a self-evident error, the Tribunal may recall it to prevent miscarriage of justice, but it cannot re-open a concluded matter merely because a different view on merits is possible. On the facts, the impugned order was treated as a correction of an inadvertent mistake in the earlier order rather than an impermissible appellate reappraisal. The Court also held that no case for supervisory interference was made out.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was held to have jurisdiction to recall the earlier order for rectification and rehearing, and the challenge under Article 227 failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A tribunal empowered to rectify mistakes apparent from the record may, in aid of justice and under its incidental procedural powers, recall an order passed under a demonstrable misapprehension to correct a palpable error, but not to conduct a rehearing on merits.

---