TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1995 (3) TMI 426
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of some assumed mistakes of law, which in its view, are "apparent from record". Before dwelling in detail on the points raised in the application, we are constrained to record at the outset that the Competent Authority in making the application seems to be completely oblivious of the distinction between what are treated to be mistakes "apparent from the record", visa-vis, those which are churned out by some argumentative process and strained reasoning, where at best, another view could be possible as per the contender's opinion. Such an understanding on the part of the applicant in this case, namely, the Competent Authority, was all the more necessary because he happens to be a statutory authority under the Act, and can be called upon t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....we revert to the application, that is the subject-matter of this order. The only point made is that after recording our discussion and the conclusion reached, we should have remanded the case back to the Competent Authority, with certain directions. In support of this plea, reliance has been placed on rule 14(2) of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property) Rules, 1977. We, however, find that these Rules were superseded, and substituted by rule 21(1) of the Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property (Procedure) Rules, 1986. It is amazing to find that the Competent Authority has not cared to keep himself abreast of the Rules which are now in force, and which were applicable and operative at the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt from the record", which could form the subject-matter of an application under section 20 of the Act. The present application, therefore, to say the least, is not only in ignorance of the existing rules, but also based on a misreading of the relevant rules and misconception on point of law, as to the scope and ambit of a petition under section 20 of the Act, namely, rectification provisions. Even under rule 14(2) of the now extinct Rules, on which the Competent Authority placed reliance, it was nowhere made mandatory on the part of the Tribunal to remand a case as was urged by the representative of the Competent Authority, during the hearing before us. It is only in the event of the Tribunal's finding that : " The Competent Authorit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the scope of a rectification application, were streamlined as under (at page 21) (see also headnote of 82 ITR) : "A mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivably two opinions. A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record. " Even on the merits what we held, on the basis of our understanding of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Attorney-General of India v. Amratlal Prajivandas, AIR 1994 SC 2179, was that on the facts of the present case, when the property sought to be forfeited was stated to be, in the reasons recorded, the property of the s....