ORDER
Jeet Ram Kait, Member (T)
1. 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 Put. 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 that they are now relying on the following judgments :
Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. CCE – 2003 (156) E.L.T. 207
Bombay Bangalore Freight Carrier Ltd. – 2003 (156) E.L.T. 101
3. Based on these judgments Consultant submits that there is mistake apparent on the face of the record and the order should be recalled as the judgment cited by them have not been appreciated and had not been recorded and analysed by the Tribunal.
4. Heard ld. DR, Shri C. Mani who submits that this judgment was dictated and pronounced in the Open Court. He further submitted that the review does not confer power to rehear the matter on merits in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Ram Kirpal v. UOI -1998 (103) E.L.T. 8. He also referred to the judgment rendered by 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 the Larger Bench in the case of Dinkar Khindria has observed that the Tribunal under no circumstance can recall an order which has been validly passed or issued and such order cannot be recalled under the cover of “rectification of mistake”. He therefore submitted that the ROM application may be dismissed.
5. We have heard the submissions made by both the sides and we find that the judgment by this Bench was dictated and pronounced in Open Court and the rival submissions were duly considered. Further, in view of the judgment rendered by the Larger Bench in the case of Dinkar Khindria v. CC – 2000 (118) E.L.T. 77, we are of the considered opinion that there is no mistake apparent from the record and rectification of mistake does not envisage the rectification of an alleged error of judgment, 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 the case of rectification of mistake could be made out. Whereas in the present case there is no mistake apparent on the face of the record and the Tribunal under no circumstance can recall an order validly passed or issued under the cover of rectification of mistake. We therefore do not find any merit in the ROM application and hence the same is dismissed.
