Typographical error noted; prior decision reliance misplaced; adjournment refused and no recall means no rehearing of customs appeal

CESTAT NEW DELHI - AT noted a typographical error in a reference but held that reliance on a CESTAT KOLKATA decision was misplaced and that the final order dated 10.02.2025 had relied on a binding judgment of the DELHI HC. The registry must clarify why the appeal was listed before this Bench. The application for adjournment filed was refused, and because the final order was not expressly recalled by the Kolkata Bench on 19.06.2025, there is no reason to rehear the customs appeal.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether an application for rectification of mistake (Review/ROM) based on alleged non-consideration of an additional precedent and a typographical error in a notification constitutes a "mistake apparent on the face of the record" justifying rectification.

2. Whether an order of another Bench allowing rectification of the earlier final order (without expressly recalling that final order) effects recall or re-hearing of the earlier final order such that the matter should be re-listed before the original Bench.

3. Whether the Registry's action in listing the appeal before a Bench different from the one that dealt with the ROM application and fixed the next date requires explanation or rectification (i.e., questions of proper listing and jurisdiction of Benches to hear the appeal post-ROM).

4. Whether a party's reliance on a particular precedent in additional submissions filed after final hearing (and purportedly not considered) is properly treated as grounds for ROM when the final order relied instead on other binding authority.

5. Whether an adjournment application should be entertained when (a) the appeal appears already decided by a final order of the present Bench and (b) no explicit recall of that final order is on record.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: ROM standard - "mistake apparent on the face of the record"

Legal framework: Rectification of mistake (ROM) is permissible only when there is a mistake apparent on the face of the record; such mistakes must be patent, not involving deliberation on merits or re-weighing evidence.

Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal noted that an additional precedent (Tri.-Kol. decision) was referred to in additional submissions filed after final hearing and that the Kolkata Bench allowed ROM on the basis that the earlier final order had not considered that precedent and contained a typographical error. The present Bench examined whether those grounds met the ROM threshold.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court analyzed the character of the alleged mistakes: (a) non-consideration of an additional precedent placed in post-hearing submissions, and (b) typographical mis-reference to a notification number. The Court observed that typographical errors are, in principle, amenable to rectification as apparent mistakes if they are clerical and do not affect substantive conclusions. By contrast, failure to consider a precedent submitted after final hearing raises questions whether omission is clerical (apparent) or substantive (requiring re-appraisal). The Court noted that the final order had expressly relied on binding authority (a High Court judgment) and that the Department contended the other precedent was inapposite; thus, the omission did not necessarily amount to a patent clerical mistake but rather a difference in assessment of precedential value.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - typographical errors in statutory or notification references can constitute mistakes apparent on the record and be rectified; omission to consider additional post-hearing submissions or precedents is not ipso facto a mistake apparent, particularly where the final order records reliance on other binding authority. Obiter - observations on the permissibility of post-hearing additional submissions where no recorded permission was granted.

Conclusion: The Court treated the typographical error as potentially rectifiable but was not persuaded that non-consideration of the post-hearing precedent was necessarily a mistake apparent on the face of the record given reliance on other binding authority; therefore ROM should be approached cautiously and is not automatically warranted where additional submissions are filed after hearing without recorded leave.

Issue 2: Effect of an order allowing ROM by a different Bench when no express recall of the earlier final order is recorded

Legal framework: A final order ordinarily governs the rights of parties unless it is set aside, recalled, or rectified by an order that explicitly affects its operative effect. An intervening order permitting ROM must, to affect finality, either recall or modify the earlier order in terms that alter its operation.

Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal noted that the Kolkata Bench allowed the ROM application but did not expressly recall or set aside the earlier final order; it simply recorded that the earlier order had not considered a precedent and contained a typographical error.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court reasoned that absent explicit recall, modification, or setting aside of the operative final order, the original final order retains force. Administrative or interlocutory orders recognizing an omission do not, without formal modification, displace the final order. Consequently, merely allowing ROM without an express recalling/remaking of the final order does not create a legal basis for re-hearing before a different Bench or for treating the appeal as pending anew.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - an order permitting ROM that does not expressly recall or vary the operative final order does not, by itself, nullify the earlier final order or justify automatic re-listing for re-hearing. Obiter - the Court's remarks on procedural propriety of the Kolkata Bench's handling.

Conclusion: Because the ROM order did not explicitly recall or modify the operative final order, there was no reason to treat the appeal as reinstated for rehearing before another Bench.

Issue 3: Registry listing and jurisdictional propriety where different Benches handle ROM and subsequent listing

Legal framework: Proper listing and assignment of matters to Benches must conform to institutional orders and must ensure continuity and clarity regarding which Bench has jurisdiction to act, particularly where a Bench has already issued a final order and another Bench has dealt with a ROM application.

Precedent Treatment: The Court observed that the ROM was dealt with by a Bench at a different Registry and that the appeal later appeared before the present Bench despite the Kolkata Bench having given the next date.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that Registry should account for and explain cross-listing or transfer of matters between Benches, since such action raises issues of administrative propriety and the correct exercise of jurisdiction. The absence of record explaining why the appeal was listed before the present Bench, instead of the Kolkata Bench which had dealt with the ROM, undermines clarity and may affect parties' rights (appearance, instructions). Accordingly, the Registry was required to clarify the matter.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Registry must ensure transparent and justifiable listing; unexplained re-listing to a different Bench is impermissible without record and justification. Obiter - procedural suggestions on registry conduct.

Conclusion: The Registry must clarify and justify the re-listing; the present Bench refrained from further proceedings until such clarification is provided.

Issue 4: Treatment of additional submissions filed after final hearing and competing precedents

Legal framework: Additional submissions filed after final hearing may be considered only with recorded permission or if treated as part of the record; their non-consideration does not automatically constitute a patent error. Where a final order cites binding precedent, the weight given to competing precedents is a matter of legal judgment.

Precedent Treatment: The Court contrasted the relied-upon binding High Court decision relied on in the final order with the Tribunal decision cited in post-hearing submissions.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court emphasized that evaluating which precedent governs a point of law involves legal judgment. If the final order explicitly relied upon binding High Court authority, the omission to treat a subsequent Tribunal decision does not necessarily betray a mistake apparent on the face of the record. The Court also noted that the record did not show recorded leave for filing late additional submissions on the date of hearing, casting doubt on the procedural permissibility of those submissions.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - omission to consider late additional submissions or a non-binding tribunal decision is not necessarily an apparent mistake where the final order relied on binding precedent; recorded leave for accepting post-hearing materials is relevant. Obiter - observations about propriety of e-mailed submissions after hearing.

Conclusion: Reliance on the other Tribunal decision in post-hearing additional submissions did not, without more, establish a ground for ROM given the final order's reliance on binding High Court authority and absence of recorded permission for post-hearing filings.

Issue 5: Adjournment application when final order not recalled

Legal framework: Adjournment relief is discretionary and may be denied where there is no demonstrable need or where the substantive posture of the matter does not warrant further hearing (for example, where operative orders remain in force).

Precedent Treatment: The Court noted that the appellants sought adjournment but the Bench was informed that the appeal stood already decided by a final order of the present Bench and that no recall of that order was on record.

Interpretation and reasoning: Given the absence of an express recall or modification of the operative final order, the Court found no reason to entertain an adjournment seeking re-hearing. Further, because the Registry's unexplained listing raised jurisdictional concerns, the Court refrained from considering the adjournment application pending registry clarification.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - adjournment was refused (or not considered) where the operative final order remains effective and no recall has been recorded. Obiter - procedural admonition regarding counsel changes and vakalatnama withdrawal.

Conclusion: The Court refused to entertain the adjournment application; absent explicit recall of the final order, there was no basis for re-hearing on the present listing.

Ancillary Observations

1. Change of counsel and vakalatnama: The Court recorded that different counsel had filed the ROM than those who represented at final hearing and that one vakalatnama was withdrawn; this fact underscores the need for clear records of representation when post-hearing applications are filed.

2. Administrative direction: The Registry is directed to clarify why the appeal was listed before the present Bench despite prior action by another Bench; proceedings before the present Bench are stayed to the extent necessary until such clarification is provided.

---