2005 (9) TMI 105 - HC - Central Excise

Tribunal erred in rejecting Rectification of Mistake Application, violating natural justice principles. Order quashed, fresh decision.

The court held that the Tribunal erred in rejecting the Rectification of Mistake Application and failing to adequately address the violation of principles ... Rectification of mistake Issues:Violation of principles of natural justice in Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's order; Rejection of Rectification of Mistake Application by the Tribunal.Analysis:The judgment concerns an appeal where the petitioner contended that the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed their appeal without addressing the violation of principles of natural justice, specifically the lack of a reasonable opportunity for defense and personal hearing. The petitioner argued that this ground was crucial, raised during the appeal and supported by an affidavit from the Advocate who represented them. The respondent authorities, however, claimed that the Tribunal had considered all points and rejected the Rectification of Mistake Application on the basis that the Advocate was not present during the hearing. The court criticized the Tribunal for rejecting the application based on the absence of the Advocate without verifying the facts, as the application was prepared and verified by the same Advocate. The court found that the Tribunal's assertion of considering all arguments in the earlier order was not evident, highlighting a failure to address a specific ground raised, indicating an apparent error.The court held that the Tribunal erred in rejecting the Rectification of Mistake Application and failing to address the violation of principles of natural justice adequately. The judgment quashed and set aside the Tribunal's order dated 11-2-2005, restoring the application for rectification to the Tribunal for a fresh decision on merits in accordance with the law. The petitioner's prayer to quash the earlier order in appeal was not granted, with the relief limited to the subsequent order. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the respondent-revenue was directed to pay costs amounting to Rs. 2500.