TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 750
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t 6 September 1995, in view of an earlier decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy Vs. Supreme Industries Ltd. reported in 2008 (225) E.L.T. 509 (Tribunal-Chennai), which decision had been placed before the Bench, but the Tribunal committed a mistake in granting the benefit of the notification from 6 September, 1995. It has also been submitted that this decision was included in the compilation provided by learned counsel for the appellant to the Bench and this point was also taken by the Appellant in the Appeal and, therefore, non consideration of a judgment directly concerning an issue raised in the Appeal would amount to an error apparent from the record so as to call for rectification of the mistake. In support of this submission, learned counsel has placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Honda SIEL Power Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi reported in 2008 (9) S.T.R. 117 (S.C.). Learned counsel for the Applicant has also specially stated that the other grounds taken in the Application are not being pressed. 3. Shri R.K. Mishra, learned Authorized Representative of the Department has, however, opp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as it thinks fit, confirming, modifying or annulling the decision or order appealed against or may refer the case back to the authority which passed such decision for a fresh adjudication. What is, therefore, necessary for a mistake to be rectified is that it must be apparent from the record. 7. Both 'mistake and 'apparent' have been explained by the Supreme Court in Deva Metal Powders (P) Ltd. vs Commissioner, Trade Tax (UP), reported in 2008 (221) ELT 16 (SC). The Supreme Court pointed out that 'mistake' means to take or understand wrongly or inaccurately or to make an error in interpreting and 'apparent' means visible; capable of being seen; obvious; plain. It has, therefore, been observed by the Supreme Court that a mistake which can be rectified is one which is patent, which is obvious and whose discovery is not dependent on argument or elaboration. The Supreme Court also pointed out that a mistake capable of being rectified is not confined to a clerical or arithmetical mistake as it has a different connotation in taxation laws and is mostly subjective. The dividing line is thin and indiscernible. It is something which a judiciously instructed mind can find out from the recor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ench at the time of hearing of the appeal, but it escaped the attention of the Bench. 10. The records do indicate that the aforesaid judgment in Supreme Industries Ltd. was placed before the Division Bench. The contention that was advanced in Supreme Industries was that the Notification dated 6 September, 1995 would be applicable w.e.f. 1 March, 1994 as it was only for a brief period from 1 March, 1994 to 5 September, 1995 that an Exemption Notification had not been issued. It was sought to be submitted that this void was inconsistent with the Government policy and, therefore, the Exemption Notification should be treated as clarifactory and with retrospective effect. The Division Bench accepted the contention advanced by the assessee that the benefit of the Exemption Notification would be available from 1 March, 1994 and the relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced below: - In this connection, learned consultant relies on the decision of the Apex Court in W.P.I.L. Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut [2005 (181) E.L.T. 359 (S.C.)], wherein an omission in Notification No. 46/94-C.E. was found to have been made good through insertion of entry 4(a) therein by the amending Notification (No. 95/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....decision of a High Court or the Supreme Court can be said to be a "mistake apparent from the record", which mistake can be rectified. It was pointed out that the error apparent from the record should be so manifest and clear that no Court would permit it to remain on record. It should be pertinent and self-evident and not require any elaborate discussion of evidence or argument. It was also observed that rectification of an order stems from the fundamental principle that justice is above all and it is to be exercised to remove the error and to disturb the finality. Paragraphs 37, 40 and 45 of the judgment are reproduced below : "37. In our judgment, therefore, a patent, manifest and self-evident error which does not require elaborate discussion of evidence or argument to establish it, can be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record and can be corrected while exercising certiorari jurisdiction. An error cannot be said to be apparent on the face of the record if one has to travel beyond the record to see whether the judgment is correct or not. An error apparent on the face of the record means an error which strikes on mere looking and does not need long-drawn-out proce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....exercising its powers when it was pointed out that the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench that was placed before it when the Original Order came to be passed, was not considered. The Supreme Court observed that the Tribunal acknowledged its mistake and, accordingly, rectified its order and so the High Court was not justified in interfering with the said order. Paragraphs 12 and 13 of the judgment are reproduced below : "12. As stated above, in this case we are concerned with the application under section 254(2) of the 1961 Act. As stated above, the expression "rectification of mistake from the record" occurs in section 154. It also finds place in section 254(2). The purpose behind enactment of section 254(2) is based on the fundamental principle that no party appearing before the Tribunal, be it an assessee or the Department, should suffer on account of any mistake committed by the Tribunal. This fundamental principle has nothing to do with the inherent powers of the Tribunal. In the present case, the Tribunal in its Order dated 10-9-2003 allowing the Rectification Application has given a finding that Samtel Color Ltd. (supra) was cited before it by the assessee but through oversight....