TARACHAND SHIVAL Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is by the appellant who says that there is an apparent error in Final Order No. A/352/2003 -NB(C) dated 28.5.2003 passed by us in Appeal No. E/246/2002 -NB(C). The error, according to the appellant, is in paragraph 3 of our order, which reads as under:

(2.) It is stated in this application to the effect that we have erroneously rejected the appellant's plea that the statements dated 9.3.2000 and 29.3.2000 were retracted by him before the adjudicating authority. This statement is based on the premis that an affidavit in Hindi, dated 4.4.2000, of the appellant retracting the said statements dated 9.3.2000 and 29.3.2000 had been submitted alongwith a covering letter to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat -I on 22.9.2000, A copy of one letter in Hindi, bearing the office seal dated 22.9.2000 of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat -I has been filed with the present application. The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that it was evident from the record that the original affidavit dated 4.4.2000 in Hindi had been received by the Commissioner on 22.9.2000. That affidavit was in the nature of retracting the earlier confessional statements of the deponent, which were relied upon by the Commissioner to penalize him and by this Tribunal to sustain (albeit to a lesser extent) the penalty imposed by the Commissioner. Counsel claimed that there was an apparent mistake of non -consideration of the Hindi affidavit of retraction submitted to the Commissioner on 22.9.2000 and that the mistake led to an erroneous conclusion in the Final Order regarding penal liability of the appellant. The SDR contested these arguments and submitted that any Hindi affidavit of retraction was no part of the appeal records and, therefore, there was no mistake in the Final Order.

(3.) We have carefully examined the submissions. As rightly pointed out by the DR, a copy of an affidavit dated 4.4.2000 in Hindi, bearing the office seal dated 22.9.2000 of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat -I has been filed (with the present application) for the first time. This document was not a part of the appeal records. The appellant's plea of error is entirely based on this document. An error to be rectified in any Final Order of this Tribunal under Section 35 -C(2) of the Central Excise Act must be one "apparent from the record". The above document filed with the present application, on which the appellant has relied for the purpose of pointing out mistake in our Final Order, was not a part of the record when we passed the said Order. Therefore, any such mistake cannot be said to be there in the Final Order.