ORDER
G.R. Sharma
1. This is an application filed by M/s.Superior Steel Products stating that on going through the same the applicants find that the following points have not been taken into account by the Hon’ble Tribunal while passing its final order No.A/479/97-NB dated 17.4.97:-
“a) Sales Tax Assessment Order No.49/Enf. dated 30th March, 1990 passed by Shri S.K.Jain, Assessing Authority (Enforcement).
b) Judgement of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Delhi dated 21st March, 1991 passed in MCA No. 70/1990 in the case of the applicant themselves.
c) Records of the inspections carried out at the factory of the applicants by the Enforcement cell of DESU on five occasions during the relevant period.
d) Trade Notice No. 3/88-Customs issued by the Trichi Collectorate detailing thereunder the functions assigned to the Principal Collector.
e) Functions of Principal Collector of Customs and Central Excise issued under C.B.E.C.s’ letter No.MF/DR/A-11019/26/88-Ad.IV dated 13.6.1988.
f) C.B.E.C’s letter issued from F.No.A-11019/98/19-Ad.IV 10th August, 1990 assigning the functions to Principal Collectors.
g) Four legal propositions comprising of relevant facts and 13 case law in respect of Shri S.Kak not being Collector on 22.10.1992.
h) Ministry of Home Affairs OM No.7/43/57-Est (A) dated 24th January, 1958 read alongwith MF (DR) F.No.15/3/58 (Co-ord) (192) dated 27th March, 1958.
i) Five out of seven legal propositions alongwith three judgements in respect of Principal Collector of Central Excise not being a Collector.
j) 14 legal propositions in respect of Principal collector not being a Collector.
k) Ground ‘B’ of the Appeal.
l) Ground ‘c’ of the Appeal.
m) FIR filed by Shri Vinod Leela on 5.11.1988 with the SHO, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi (P/232 of the paper book).
n) Complaint made to the DG, CEIB, New Delhi dated 24.12.1988, by Shri Vinod Leela.
o) Proceedings arising out of the cross examination of Shri G.R.Gupta (Panch Witness) done on 6.11.1989.
p) Proceedings arising out of the cross-examination of Shri S.C.Gupta (Panch Witness) done on 17.10.1990.
q) Cross-examination of the then Range Supdt. (Shri V.K.Govila) dt.6.11.1989.”
2. The applicants were manufacturing S.S.Ingots, M.S.Ingots, A.S.Ingots, Steel Castings, Alloy Steel Castings, Iron Castings and S.S.Castings. The Departmental Authorities received an information that the applicants were suppressing production and were not accounting for the finished goods correctly. Accordingly the factory premises and residential premises of the Managing Director were raided. Incriminating documents were seized and statements of various persons were recorded.
3. After going through the records and hearing the pleas of the applicants, the Tribunal passed the above referred final order. The adjudicating authority formulated the issues to be decided as under:-
(1) Whether the records recovered and subsequently seized on 4.11.89 from the residential as well as factory premises of Shri Vinod Kumar, Managing Director pertained to the applicants; and if so
(2) Whether the party suppressed the facts of receipt of raw materials, production and clearance thereof from the department with an intention to evade Central Excise duty; and if so
(3) Whether extended period of five years under Section 11A(i) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for recovery of central Excise duty not paid by the party, is applicable in their case or not.
4. On careful reading of the discussion and findings, we find that all the papers recovered and found incriminating were dealt with at length by the adjudicating authority. On a reading of the adjudication order, we note that even without mentioning of the particular documents, the points were examined by the adjudicating authority. Further, we find that it was not at all necessary to mention all the documents looked into for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion. On page 20 of the adjudication order in para 45, the adjudicating authority examined the evidence where in Shri Subhash Girotro, Assistant Engineer, DESU in his statement dt.6.11.89 admitted that on the basis of raid conducted on 10.1.89, it was observed that there was fraudulent decline in the consumption of electricity over period of time.
5. Insofar as the point mentioned as (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i) and (j) are concerned, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the authorities had acted within their jurisdiction.
6. Insofar as the point (k) is concerned, we note that the applicant was give personal hearing and cross examination of some of the important persons. Thus, there was no violation of the principles of natural justice.
7. Insofar as the argument of the applicants that the case is built on presumptions and assumptions is concerned, we note that the adjudicating authority has given reasons after detailed examination of the evidence on records and this contention of the applicants regarding the case being built on presumptions and assumptions is not tenable.
8. The adjudicating authority dealt with the cross-examination of Shri G.R.Gupta in para 35 of his order.
9. It may e mentioned that it is not necessary to deal with each and every document by mentioning its name. It is overall view after examining the documents that is taken by the Tribunal as the Tribunal in para 17 of its order held that “We find there is no legal infirmity in the order and that the evidence is sufficient to uphold the allegation and that the same has been adequately dealt with by the adjudicating authority.” Thus we find that the Tribunal while passing the final order had examined not only the reasoning given by the adjudicating authority but also the contents of the documents. Though the documents have not been mentioned by name.
10. The power of rectification of mistake under Section 35C of the Act is a limited power and this power is restricted to rectification of the mistakes apparent from the record calling for amendment of the order. “Rectification” means “taking out the mistakes from”. A mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by long drawn process of reasoning on points, on which there me conceivably be two opinions (refer Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Balaram, Income Tax Officer Company Circle IV, Bombay Vs. M/s.Volkart Brothers & others – AIR 1971 (SC) 2204 (SC).
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 judgement.
Rectification of mistake is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an order even if it is not valid, is re-heard and re-decided. Rectification of mistake application lies only for patent mistake. Only in a case where the mistake stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a case for rectification could be made out.
On careful consideration of the matter, we hold that a decision which has been validly made by a duly constituted Bench is not open for review on the alleged ground that according to the applicants the decision was erroneous on fact or law. In any case, the Tribunal has no power to review its order.
This Tribunal is a creation of the statute. Only the powers conferred under the statute, which created it can be exercised. It has no inherent powers as are available with courts established under the Constitution or Codes of Civil Procedure or Criminal Procedure. This Tribunal can not (SIC) recall an order passed or issued. Under the cover of “rectification of mistake” this Tribunal cannot exercise any power to recall an order validly passed.
In view of the above, the application for rectification of mistake is rejected.