Tribunal recalls order due to errors, emphasizes importance of proper evidence admission.

The Tribunal recalled its final order dated 24-7-1998 following a disagreement between the Vice President and Member (J) regarding errors in the reliance on test reports and technical errors in the cause title and order number. The third member agreed with Member (J) that the order needed reconsideration. The Miscellaneous Application was allowed, and the appeals were fixed for re-hearing, emphasizing the importance of addressing objections and admitting evidence properly.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Application for rectification of errors in the Tribunal's final order.
2. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to review its own order.
3. Evaluation of evidence and whether errors were apparent on the face of the record.
4. Reliance on test reports and their relevance to the case.
5. Technical errors in the cause title and impugned order number.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Application for Rectification of Errors:
The primary issue is the application for rectification of errors in the Tribunal's final order dated 24-7-1998. The applicants argued that there were errors in the order which needed rectification. However, the Tribunal observed that the application appeared more like an appeal by an aggrieved person rather than a rectification of errors. The Tribunal emphasized that it does not have the power to review its own order and that the application was beyond its jurisdiction.

2. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to Review its Own Order:
The Tribunal reiterated that it does not have the power to review its own order. It was noted that a decision consciously taken after evaluating evidence cannot be called an error apparent on the face of records. The Tribunal stated that if the applicants were aggrieved by the judgment, they should seek remedies available in law rather than attempting to get the whole case reviewed under the guise of a rectification application.

3. Evaluation of Evidence and Errors Apparent on the Face of the Record:
The Tribunal highlighted that an error apparent on the face of the record is one that is immediately evident and does not require elaborate arguments or citations. The Tribunal found that the applicants' submissions, both oral and written, were duly considered in the original order. The Tribunal's decision was based on an evaluation of the evidence, including test reports and other relevant materials. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the application did not demonstrate any errors apparent on the face of the record.

4. Reliance on Test Reports and Their Relevance to the Case:
A significant point of contention was the reliance on test reports from the National Test House (NTH) and the Central Revenue Control Laboratory (CRCL). The applicants argued that these reports did not relate to their goods and were not relied upon at any stage of the proceedings before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, however, observed that these reports were part of the record and were considered in the final order. The Tribunal noted that the applicants' plea regarding the time-bar was accepted, but their pleas on merits were not, based on the evaluation of evidence.

Separate Judgment by Archana Wadhwa, Member (J):
Member (J) Archana Wadhwa disagreed with the Vice President's order and provided a separate judgment. She noted that the applicants' grievance was that the test reports relied upon by the Tribunal did not relate to their goods. She argued that reliance on these reports was a mistake apparent from the records. She also pointed out technical errors in the cause title and impugned order number. Based on her analysis, she concluded that the Tribunal's order should be recalled and the appeals fixed for re-hearing.

5. Technical Errors in the Cause Title and Impugned Order Number:
The applicants pointed out technical errors in the cause title and the number of the impugned order. These errors were acknowledged and corrected by Member (J) Archana Wadhwa.

Difference of Opinion and Third Member's Opinion:
Due to the difference of opinion between the Vice President and Member (J), the matter was referred to a third member, P.C. Jain, Vice President. The third member agreed with Member (J) Archana Wadhwa that the Tribunal's final order needed to be recalled for reconsidering the Revenue's appeal. He noted that the Tribunal had relied on various materials, including the NTH report, without properly admitting it on record and addressing the applicants' objections.

Final Order:
In view of the majority opinion, the Miscellaneous Application (R.O.M.) was allowed, and the Tribunal's final order dated 24-7-1998 was recalled. The appeals were fixed for re-hearing.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal's final decision was to recall the order and re-hear the appeals, acknowledging the errors pointed out by the applicants and the need for proper consideration of the evidence and objections raised.

---