Tribunal rules on rectification of mistakes, time-barred appeal, certified copy, and uncited case laws.

The Tribunal rejected the appellant's application for rectification of mistakes regarding a time-barred appeal, exclusion of time for obtaining a certified copy, and reliance on uncited case laws. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's application for the certified copy and corrected the order's statement on this issue but upheld its right to consider relevant judgments not cited during the appeal. The rectification was limited to the certified copy issue, with the overall application being rejected.

---

---

Issues: Rectification of mistakes in final order regarding time-barred appeal, exclusion of time for obtaining certified copy, reliance on uncited case laws.

In this case, the appellant filed an application under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 seeking rectification of mistakes in the final order upholding the rejection of the appeal as time-barred. The appellant argued that the Bench did not consider the point raised in the Appeal Memorandum regarding the exclusion of time taken to obtain the certified copy of the order, as well as the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The appellant also contended that the Tribunal erroneously stated that there was no record of them applying for the certified copy, while they had provided evidence of applying on 9-5-1992 and receiving it on 14-10-1993. Additionally, the appellant objected to the Tribunal relying on cases not cited during the appeal hearing, claiming that this was a mistake requiring rectification.

The Respondent, opposing the appellant's submissions, argued that the Tribunal had already addressed the exclusion of time taken to obtain the certified copy and pursue the matter before higher courts in the previous order. The Respondent contended that the appellant's application for rectification was, in reality, a request for a review of the Tribunal's order under the guise of rectifying mistakes. The Respondent also defended the Tribunal's right to refer to and rely on case laws not cited during the appeal hearing, asserting that no error was apparent on the face of the record.

Upon considering the arguments from both sides, the Tribunal acknowledged that the appellant had indeed applied for the certified copy on 9-5-1992, which was received on 14-10-1993. The Tribunal disagreed with the appellant's assertion that relying on uncited case laws was a mistake, stating that it was within the Tribunal's authority to consider relevant judgments. However, the Tribunal rectified the mistake regarding the absence of evidence of the appellant's application for the certified copy by substituting the erroneous statement in the order with the correct information provided by the appellant. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the application for rectification of mistakes, with the correction made regarding the certified copy issue.

---