1985 (3) TMI 271 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of mistakes in an order regarding the applicability of policy provisions, classification of imported motor, interpretation of ITC Policy, binding effect of Board's decision, and the power of the Court to review its own order.

Analysis:
The case involved a miscellaneous application by Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. seeking rectification of mistakes in an order dated July 21, 1984. The appellant, represented by Shri Subimal Som, argued that the Appellate Tribunal erred in applying provisions of the policy related to banned items of non-permissible spares to a motor of 60 HP, as Appendix 3 only covered motors up to 30 HP and fractional HP motors. The appellant contended that the motor should not be considered a spare based on the absence of restrictions in the ITC Policy and the lack of evidence to classify it as a special type of motor. Additionally, the appellant challenged the Tribunal's reliance on the Board's decision in a similar case, arguing that it should be binding due to the nature of case law analysis.

In response, the Junior Departmental Representative, Shri B. Bhowmik, contended that there was no mistake in the order and opposed the appellant's plea for rectification. During the arguments, the Member (J) cited precedents from the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasizing that a mistake apparent from the record must be obvious and patent, not based on debatable legal points. The Member (J) concluded that there was no mistake in the order and highlighted the Court's lack of authority to review its own order under the Customs Act, 1962, Section 129B(2). Relying on the legal principles established by the Supreme Court, the Member (J) dismissed the miscellaneous application, stating that no obvious or patent mistake was present in the record, thus upholding the original order. The judgment emphasized the need for clear and evident errors for rectification, rather than debatable legal interpretations.

In summary, the Appellate Tribunal, in this case, declined the appellant's request for rectification of mistakes in the order, upholding the original decision. The judgment highlighted the stringent criteria for rectification, emphasizing that mistakes must be obvious and patent, not subject to differing legal interpretations. The analysis focused on the interpretation of policy provisions, classification of imported motors, and the Court's limited power to review its own orders under the Customs Act, 1962.