2010 (5) TMI 283 - AT - Central Excise

Appellate Tribunal orders re-hearing of appeals due to error in original order

The Appellate Tribunal ordered a re-hearing of appeals filed by M/s. Aura Oil Industries and the Revenue due to a mistake in the original order, which led ... Rectification of Mistake- Both the Revenue and the appellants have filed application for rectification of mistake in the order passed by the Tribunal. Tribunal has referred case laws cited by them during the course of arguments, but this Tribunal has made error apparent on record by not commenting on them. Moreover, he also submitted that in this case the Tribunal has arrived at the decision that “appeals are rejected and cross- objection filed by the Revenue being only in support of impugned orders is also disposed off is not correct at all. Held that- The issue involved is one of valuation of soap cakes. When both the appeals are rejected, find that the Tribunal has not arrived at any decision. Hence there is no decision of the Tribunal on the issues involved and canvassed. In the light of the above discussion, the matter is to be re-heard. Issues:Rectification of mistake in the order passed by the Tribunal regarding appeals filed by M/s. Aura Oil Industries and the Revenue.Analysis:The Appellate Tribunal received applications from both the Revenue and the appellants seeking rectification of a mistake in the order passed by the Tribunal regarding appeals filed by M/s. Aura Oil Industries and the Revenue. The Tribunal had rejected both appeals, but it was noted that the tenor of the order implied that both appeals were filed by M/s. Aura Oil Industries, leading to confusion. The Tribunal did not provide any findings on the case laws cited during the arguments, creating ambiguity. The learned Counsel for M/s. Aura Oil Industries argued that the matter should be re-heard based on precedents such as Asstt. Commissioner, Income Tax, Rajkot v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. and Stanlek Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai-II, where mistakes apparent on record were rectified. The Tribunal agreed that the judgment in the Stanlek Engineering Pvt. Ltd. case was applicable, and as both appeals were rejected without a clear decision, the matter needed to be re-heard.The learned DR contended that the Tribunal had considered submissions from both sides in detail before passing the order and that the decision cited by the Advocate for M/s. Aura Oil Industries was indeed considered. However, it was pointed out that there was an error apparent on record as the order indicated that both appeals were rejected, whereas only the appeal by M/s. Aura Oil Industries was rejected, and the appeal by the Revenue was allowed. The cross-objection filed by the appellant was also disposed of. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal found that a mistake had indeed occurred in the order, leading to confusion regarding the appeals filed. The Tribunal decided that a re-hearing of the appeals was necessary to ensure justice and clarity in the matter. Consequently, the appeals were directed to be listed for rehearing, and the applications for rectification of mistake were disposed of accordingly.