1988 (12) TMI 250 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Rectification of mistakes apparent on the face of the order related to confiscation of goods, failure to consider crucial evidence and legal precedents, and errors in interpreting the law.

Analysis:

1. The appellants raised several mistakes apparent on the face of the order, including the confirmation of confiscation without giving the option of redemption fine, failure to consider crucial evidence like testing of samples and statements during personal hearing, and misinterpretation of facts regarding Denier value. The Tribunal was urged to consider Supreme Court judgments supporting the appellant's case, which were overlooked. The appellants argued that redemption fine should have been fixed for confiscated goods, a point not addressed in the original order.

2. The Tribunal noted that under Section 34 of the Central Excises & Salt Act, the Adjudicating officer must provide the option of paying a fine in lieu of confiscation. However, as there was no proof that this point was pressed during the hearing and was not included in the Counsel's summary, the Tribunal did not find this mistake apparent on the face of the records.

3. Regarding the alleged mistake of not considering the request for testing samples, the Tribunal verified the records and found that the applicants' submissions were correct. The failure to order a test of the goods was acknowledged as a mistake, and the importance of this oversight was highlighted in the order. The Tribunal disagreed with the Respondent's argument that the omission was immaterial, emphasizing the significance of the appellants' request for testing.

4. The Tribunal observed that the failure to consider the request for testing samples was a clear mistake in the order, which could not be ignored. The remaining minor points raised were deemed insignificant for consideration. A judgment from the High Court of Madhya Pradesh on rectification of mistakes was presented, influencing the decision to rehear the matter in the interests of justice due to the identified mistake.

5. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the rectification of the mistake and directed a fresh hearing to be granted, setting aside the original order for reconsideration. The decision was made to ensure justice and fairness in light of the errors identified in the initial judgment.