CESTAT rejects rectification plea after appellants hire new counsel to challenge previous lawyer's jurisdictional submissions

CESTAT dismissed rectification applications filed by appellants who claimed the Tribunal committed an error by not deciding the jurisdictional question. The appellants, after partially succeeding in their appeal, hired new counsel to challenge their previous counsel's submissions. CESTAT held no mistake existed on record, noting it had properly considered jurisdictional issues in the final order and decided the matter on merits after both parties chose not to press the jurisdictional question during proceedings.

---

---

Issues involved: Rectification of mistake in Final Order regarding jurisdiction of the officer issuing the Show Cause Notices (SCN).

Summary:
The appellants filed applications for rectification of an alleged mistake in the Final Order, seeking examination of the jurisdiction of the officer issuing the SCN. The Tribunal had directed the original authority to maintain status quo pending the final decision of the Supreme Court in a related case. The High Court set aside the Tribunal's earlier order and directed a fresh decision on merits. Both parties chose to argue the matter solely on merits, forgoing the question of jurisdiction. The appellants later claimed they were unaware of this decision due to their counsel and sought rectification based on jurisdictional grounds.

The Tribunal considered the submissions and records, concluding that the rectification applications were misconceived. It noted that the appellants were represented by a counsel who made submissions on their behalf, which were presumed to be on instructions. The Tribunal emphasized that legal proceedings cannot be reopened based on new counsel challenging previous submissions. It asserted that it had considered the jurisdiction issue in light of relevant judgments and amendments but could only decide based on the arguments presented by both sides. As neither side pressed the jurisdiction issue during arguments, the matter was decided on merits as agreed.

The Tribunal found no mistake in its Final Order and dismissed the rectification applications, emphasizing that there was no error apparent on record. The applications were therefore rejected, and the decision was pronounced in open court on 19/03/2024.

---