Non-consideration of binding precedent can be a mistake apparent from the record, justifying recall for fresh consideration.

Non-consideration of a binding High Court decision and the statutory effect of the rehabilitation scheme under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 was treated as a mistake apparent from the record. The Tribunal noted that its earlier order had not considered the cited precedent or the Act's overriding effect over inconsistent laws, including the departmental circulars on fiscal concessions for sick industrial companies. Because that omission was material to the controversy, the error required correction by recall of the earlier order for fresh consideration. The miscellaneous application was therefore allowed, and the matter was reopened.

---

---

Issues: Whether non-consideration of the binding High Court decision and the statutory effect of the rehabilitation scheme constituted a mistake apparent from the record warranting recall of the Tribunal's earlier order.

Analysis: The application pointed out that the earlier order did not consider the Delhi High Court's decision and the statutory framework under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, including its overriding effect over inconsistent laws and the departmental circulars dealing with fiscal concessions for sick industrial companies. On perusal, it was found that the coordinate Bench had not taken note of the cited High Court decision, and that omission amounted to a mistake in the order. The Tribunal therefore held that the error required correction by recalling the earlier order for fresh consideration.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the assessee. The omission was treated as a mistake apparent from the record, and recall of the earlier order was warranted.

Final Conclusion: The miscellaneous application succeeded and the earlier order was recalled for reconsideration.

Ratio Decidendi: Non-consideration of a binding precedent material to the controversy constitutes a mistake apparent from the record and justifies recall of the order.

---