Rectification jurisdiction under procedural rules allows correction of apparent legal error; refusal to hear the application was unsustainable.

The Tribunal could not refuse a rectification application on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction when its inherent powers under Rule 41 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 enabled it to examine the request on merits. The Court held that an apparent legal error could be corrected, especially where the earlier order was said to be inapplicable to Notification No. 154/90-C.E. dated 1-11-1990. The Tribunal's claimed helplessness was therefore untenable, and the order rejecting rectification could not stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal could decline to entertain an application for rectification on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction, and whether the impugned order rejecting rectification could be sustained.

Analysis: The order proceeded on the basis that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to deal with a rectification request because of a Larger Bench view. The Court held that this approach was untenable. It noted that the Tribunal should have exercised its inherent powers under Rule 41 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 and considered the rectification application on merits, particularly where the earlier order relied upon was stated to be inapplicable to Notification No. 154/90-C.E. dated 1-11-1990. The Court accepted that an apparent legal error could be corrected and that the Tribunal's professed helplessness could not stand.

Conclusion: The Tribunal did have jurisdiction to entertain and decide the rectification application, and the order refusing to do so was unsustainable.

---