Natural justice and rectification powers: denial of cross-examination caused no prejudice, while the order was corrected on an apparent mistake.

Denial of cross-examination of the appellants' accountant was held not to constitute a violation of natural justice on the facts recorded, as no prejudice warranting interference was established. The Tribunal also applied its rectificatory power under Section 35C of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 to correct a mistake apparent on the record and modified the earlier order by deleting specified portions from its reasoning. The order was therefore amended only to that limited extent, while the remaining grounds were left to be heard on merits by the regular Bench.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether denial of the facility of cross-examination of the accountant of the appellants' firm amounted to violation of the principles of natural justice. (ii) Whether the earlier order called for rectification under the Tribunal's power to amend a mistake apparent on the record.

Issue (i): Whether denial of the facility of cross-examination of the accountant of the appellants' firm amounted to violation of the principles of natural justice.

Analysis: The Tribunal considered the record and the submissions addressed on the limited point of natural justice. It found that the challenge based on refusal of cross-examination did not establish any breach warranting interference with the earlier order.

Conclusion: The Collector of Central Excise & Customs did not violate the principles of natural justice by not allowing cross-examination of the accountant.

Issue (ii): Whether the earlier order called for rectification under the Tribunal's power to amend a mistake apparent on the record.

Analysis: The Tribunal exercised its rectificatory jurisdiction under Section 35C of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 and modified the earlier order by deleting the specified portions from the reasoning recorded in the prior decision.

Conclusion: The rectification application was allowed to the extent of the modification made in the earlier order.

Final Conclusion: The order stood modified on the limited rectification prayed for, while the appeal was directed to be heard on merits by the regular Bench on the remaining grounds.

Ratio Decidendi: Rectificatory jurisdiction may be invoked to correct an apparent mistake in the order, but denial of cross-examination does not constitute a violation of natural justice unless prejudice is established on the facts.

---