2025 (5) TMI 1286 - AT - Customs

Customs classification rectification rejected as alleged mistake required lengthy reasoning and was debatable legal issue

CESTAT New Delhi rejected an application for rectification of mistake in a final order concerning comparison of goods features in customs classification. ... Seeking Rectification of Mistake in the Final Order - wrong comparison of features of various goods - Mistake apparent from the record - correct comparison between the products involved in the impugned Bill of Entries - Tribunal concluded that the goods covered in Table One are the goods which are covered under the previous Bill of Entry dated 16.02.2018 as dealt with in previous Final Order of the Tribunal which was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta versus A.S.C.U. Ltd. [2002 (12) TMI 87 - SUPREME COURT] and Table Two is held to mention, the goods as different from the goods in Table One. HELD THAT:- The perusal clarifies that the sole ground on which the Rectification of Mistake is allowed is that the error should be apparent form the record. This phrase for “mistake apparent from record” was earlier explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.S. Balaram, Income Tax Officer versus Volkart Brothers - [1971 (8) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT], wherein it was held that a debatable action of law cannot constitute a mistake apparent from the record on it two opinions are considerable. Such point cannot be said to be error apparent on the face of record. It further clarified that a mistake apparent on record must be an obvious and patent mistake and should not be something which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on the points on which there may conceivably be the two opinions. The impugned Final Order No. 58770 of 2024 dated 03.10.2024 is in the appeal filed before this Tribunal assailing the said order-in-appeal dated 31.10.2019. Foremost the mistake pointed out i.e. the comparison of features of various goods cannot be appreciated without a long drawn process of reasoning and is a situation where two different views are possible. Consequently, the mistake pointed out is denied to be the error apparent in the present final order. As pointed out by learned authorized representative the Table One of Paragraph 14 is same as the one mentioned in the show cause notice. Thus, we hold that the appellant through a new Counsel, than the one who made submissions at the time of passing of the impugned final order, is trying to seek re-hearing in the present appeal under the garb of seeking Rectification of Mistake in the final Order dated 03.10.2024. It has already been held that there is no such error as is apparent on face of the impugned final order. Consequently, the application is hereby dismissed. Be consigned to the records along with the appeal, already consigned. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this matter are:Whether the alleged error in paragraph 14 of the Final Order No. 58770 of 2024 dated 03.10.2024 amounts to a 'mistake apparent from the record' within the meaning of Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, thereby justifying rectification of the order.Whether the distinction drawn by the Tribunal between the goods covered under the 7 Bills of Entry in the impugned order, as compared to the goods under the earlier Bill of Entry dated 16.02.2018, was erroneous or based on a debatable question of fact or law.Whether the appellant is entitled to a re-hearing or reconsideration of the appeal under the guise of seeking rectification of mistake.Whether a typographical error in the naming of the authorized representative in paragraph 2 of the impugned final order warrants correction.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Whether the alleged error constitutes a 'mistake apparent from the record' under Section 35C(2)Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 empowers the Appellate Tribunal to amend any order passed by it to rectify any 'mistake apparent from the record' within six months from the date of the order. The Supreme Court has elucidated the scope of 'mistake apparent from the record' in several decisions:In T.S. Balaram, Income Tax Officer v. Volkart Brothers, the Court held that a debatable question of law or fact cannot constitute a mistake apparent from the record. The mistake must be obvious, patent, and not requiring elaborate reasoning or argument.In Commissioner of Central Excise v. A.S.C.U. Ltd., the Supreme Court reaffirmed that only an obvious and patent error qualifies as a mistake apparent from the record, and not a matter open to two opinions.In Deva Metal Powders (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P., the Court further clarified that 'apparent' means visible, obvious, and plain, and that a mistake must be discoverable by a judicious mind from the record without elaborate argument.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal emphasized that the alleged error involves a comparison of features of various goods imported under different Bills of Entry. Such a comparison involves detailed analysis and reasoning, which is inherently debatable and open to more than one opinion. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the alleged error is not an obvious or patent mistake apparent on the face of the record.Application of law to facts: The appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in paragraph 14 of the impugned order by wrongly classifying goods under two tables and drawing incorrect conclusions about their similarity and commonality. However, the Tribunal observed that this issue was already considered and decided in the appeal, and the comparison does not amount to a mistake apparent from the record. The Tribunal noted that the Table One in paragraph 14 corresponds to the show cause notice, and the distinction drawn was consistent with the prior proceedings upheld by the Supreme Court.Treatment of competing arguments: The appellant argued that the distinction was wrongly arrived at and sought rectification to correct the comparison. The Department opposed the application, contending that the grounds raised were new, not part of the pleadings earlier, and amounted to a request for re-hearing rather than rectification. The Department relied on the precedent in Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta v. A.S.C.U. Ltd. to assert that rectification cannot be used as a vehicle for re-hearing or reconsideration.Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the alleged error is not a mistake apparent from the record but a debatable point requiring detailed reasoning. Consequently, rectification under Section 35C(2) was not warranted.Issue 2: Whether the appellant is seeking re-hearing under the guise of rectificationRelevant legal framework and precedents: The Supreme Court in A.S.C.U. Ltd. clarified that rectification is not a substitute for appeal or re-hearing and cannot be used to re-agitate issues already decided.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the appellant, represented by new counsel at this stage, was attempting to revisit the merits of the appeal by raising new grounds and arguments not previously pleaded or argued. Such an attempt was viewed as an indirect request for re-hearing.Application of law to facts: The Tribunal found that the appellant's submissions in the rectification application effectively sought to re-examine the evidence and findings on the similarity of goods, which had already been adjudicated. This was impermissible under the law governing rectification.Treatment of competing arguments: The Department pointed out that the appellant's current counsel was not involved in the original hearing, and the new arguments were not part of the record. The Tribunal agreed with this position.Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the application was an attempt to seek re-hearing and was therefore not maintainable under the rectification provisions.Issue 3: Correction of typographical error in naming the authorized representativeRelevant legal framework: Rectification of typographical or clerical errors is generally permissible as such errors are apparent from the record and do not involve re-examination of substantive issues.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal acknowledged the typographical error in paragraph 2 of the impugned order where the name of the authorized representative was incorrectly mentioned. The Tribunal allowed correction of this error.Conclusion: The Tribunal ordered replacement of the incorrect name with the correct name of the authorized representative.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS'A debatable action of law cannot constitute a mistake apparent from the record on it two opinions are considerable. Such point cannot be said to be error apparent on the face of record.''A mistake apparent on record must be an obvious and patent mistake and should not be something which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on the points on which there may conceivably be the two opinions.''The sole ground on which the Rectification of Mistake is allowed is that the error should be apparent form the record.''Rectification is not a substitute for re-hearing and cannot be used to re-agitate issues already decided.''The alleged error involves a comparison of features of various goods which cannot be appreciated without a long drawn process of reasoning and is a situation where two different views are possible.'Final determinations:The application for rectification of mistake in the Final Order dated 03.10.2024 was dismissed as the alleged error was not a mistake apparent from the record but a debatable question of fact and law.The appellant was held to be impermissibly seeking re-hearing under the guise of rectification.The typographical error in the name of the authorized representative was allowed to be corrected.