Tan India Limited vs CEGAT

F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.—By consent of the parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal.

The case of the petitioner is that, the Tribunal passed its earlier order dated 30-7-1996 wherein it wanted to follow its own order passed in Order No. 994 of 1996, dated 2-7-1996 which order related to the benefit of the Notification No. 36/87, dated 1-3-1987, while the present proceedings related to the benefit that was available to the Cement manufacturers under Notification No. 154/90-C.E., dated 1-11-1990. In those circumstances, when the petitioner approached the Tribunal again with an application for rectification, by the order impugned in the writ-petition dated 11-10-2001 in Misc. Order No. 339 of 2001 the Tribunal, unfortunately, expressed its helplessness in considering the rectification sought for by the petitioner by stating that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal took the view that the Tribunal lack jurisdiction to pass any orders on the ground of "rectification of mistake".

In this context, Mr. Aravind Datar learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of a Division Bench of Gujarat High Court reported in Ram Kirpal Vs. Union of India, wherein this very question about the jurisdiction of the Tribunal came to be considered with particular reference to Rule 41 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 and held that the Tribunal has got inherent jurisdiction to exercise such powers wherein to set aside a palpably erroneous order passed under misapprehension by it and a review on merits when the error sought to be corrected is one of law and is apparent on the face of the record. While holding so the Division Bench relied upon the judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in 1980 (Supplement) Supreme Court Cases 420 in Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Ors. as well as JT 1993 (5) SC 27 in S. Nagaraj and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Anr.

In such circumstances, the helplessness pleaded by the Tribunal in dealing with the rectification application of the petitioner by relying upon the Larger Bench decision of Tribunal cannot be accepted. The Tribunal should have followed the ruling of the Hon''ble Supreme Court and exercised its inherent powers under the said Rule 41 and dealt with the rectification application in the manner know to law especially when it was pointed out to the Tribunal that the earlier order relied upon by it while passing its order dated 30-7-1996, was inapplicable in respect of the Notification No. 154/90-C.E., dated 1-11-1990. Therefore, the order impugned in the writ petition cannot be sustained.

While setting aside the order impugned in the writ petition, the first respondent is directed to take on record the petitioner''s application filed for rectification dated 22-7-2000, consider the same on merits, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, WPMP No. 66901 of 2002 is closed.