2004 (3) TMI 114

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., Member (T) (Oral)]. - ROM application has been filed on the ground that during the hearings and in the cross-objections filed, they have cited the following judgments : U.O.I. v. Bombay Tyres International Pvt. Ltd. - 1984 (17) E.L.T. 329 (S.C.) Siva Tobacco Co. v. CCE - 1996 (87) E.L.T. 177 (T) Kerala Electric Lamp Works Ltd. v. CCE - 1996 (87) E.L.T. 206 (T) 2. Consultant submits t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Larger Bench in the case of Dinkar Khindria v. CC - 2000 (118) E.L.T. 77 wherein it has been held that a decision on a debatable point of law or facts is not a mistake apparent from the record and the debatable issue could not be the subject of an order of rectification. Rectification of mistake does not envisage the rectification of an alleged error of judgment. He further pointed out that th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t, if any. We further observe that the Rectification of Mistake is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an order even if it is not valid is reheard and re-decided, rectification of mistake application lies only for patent mistakes and only in a case where the mistake stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, it is only in such a circumstance th....