Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2018 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (1) TMI 1263 - HC - Central ExciseRectification of mistake - whether the CESTAT was justified in rejecting the application for correction of the mistake even when the mistake was on part of the tribunal and was not attributable to the assessee? - Held that - Where the correction is not attributable to the party, there may not be any necessity for moving an application and the same can be rectified by the court/tribunal as soon as it comes to its notice. Therefore, when a mistake in the order which was mere clerical in nature had come to the knowledge of court/tribunal and it was not attributable to the party but was on part of the court/tribunal, it was incumbent upon such court/tribunal to suo motu rectify the same and the period of limitation may not be hurdle in such exercise of power. The tribunal was not justified in rejecting the application for rectification of mistake in the facts and circumstances of the present case on the ground of limitation and the same could have been corrected in exercise of its inherent suo motu powers. The matter is remitted to the CESTAT for deciding the rectification application - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues: Appeal against CESTAT order for rectification of mistake.
Analysis: The High Court heard an appeal against a Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) order dated 5-7-2007. The CESTAT had decided seven excise appeals, including one with the appeal number 3439 of 2005-SM (BR). However, the title of the decision mentioned only six orders, omitting the aforementioned appeal number. The appellant's application to rectify this mistake was rejected by the CESTAT on the grounds of limitation, stating there was no provision for condonation of delay. The appellant argued that the CESTAT erred in rejecting the application as the mistake was on the part of the tribunal and not the assessee. The main question of law was whether the CESTAT was justified in rejecting the rectification application. The High Court noted that every court or tribunal has inherent power to rectify mistakes in its orders, whether on application or suo motu. If a mistake is clerical and not attributable to a party, the court/tribunal should rectify it upon noticing, without being hindered by limitations. The High Court held that the CESTAT was not justified in rejecting the rectification application based on limitation and could have rectified the mistake using its inherent powers. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the previous order was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the CESTAT for proper consideration in accordance with the law and the High Court's observations.
|