2009 (11) TMI 234 - HC - Central Excise

Rectification of mistake- the present appeal has been filed for rectification of the earlier order passed by the Tribunal. Held that- we find that only argument that the inferences which were drawn by the Tribunal on the basis of the material on record could not have been possibly drawn by it is beyond the scope of rectification proceedings. Taking the argument on the face value we are of the considered opinion that such argument cannot be entertained while considering a rectification application. We do not find that any substantial question of law is involved in the appeal.The appeal is dismissed accordingly.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the dismissal of rectification application by the Tribunal.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the Tribunal's order dismissing the rectification application. The appellant raised substantial questions of law regarding the Tribunal's decision-making process. The first issue raised was whether the Tribunal was justified in deciding the appeal without considering the contentions raised and argued by the appellant. The second issue questioned whether the Tribunal erred in rejecting the rectification application without acknowledging the mistake of not considering the contentions raised during the appeal. The third issue raised was about the Tribunal's justification for rejecting the rectification application when the contentions were not dismissed explicitly. The fourth issue questioned the Tribunal's application of the Supreme Court's judgment in the present case.

During the hearing, both the appellant's and respondent's counsels presented their arguments. The High Court noted that the appeal was decided promptly after arguments were concluded, and the judgment was dictated in the presence of the counsels. The appellant later filed a rectification application through a different counsel, seeking reconsideration of arguments raised earlier. The High Court opined that such an application should have been made by the counsel who argued the case initially. The Court emphasized that rectification proceedings cannot be used to reargue a case or introduce new arguments. The High Court concluded that the argument about the Tribunal's inferences being incorrect based on the evidence was not a valid ground for rectification. Therefore, the Court dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial question of law was involved in the case.

In summary, the High Court dismissed the appeal against the Tribunal's order, emphasizing that rectification proceedings cannot be used to reargue a case or introduce new arguments. The Court highlighted the importance of maintaining consistency in arguments presented during the original hearing and rejected the appellant's attempt to challenge the Tribunal's inferences through a rectification application filed by a different counsel.