Page 180 - ELT_1st June 2020_VOL 372_Part 5th

714 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

closed and settled matter, particularly in matter decided and settled four years
back, is the finding therein.
17. In a more recent decision of the Apex Court in Deva Metal Powders
Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, Trade Tax, UP [2008 (221) E.L.T. 16 (S.C.)], it was found
that “apparent” means visible; capable of being seen, obvious, plain. It means
open to view, visible, evident, appears, appearing as real and true, conspicuous,
manifest, obvious, seeming. It was found that, rectification of an order does not
mean obliteration of the order originally passed and its substitution by a new
order. Where the error is far from self-evident, it ceases to be an apparent error.
An error which is apparent from record should be one which is not an error
which depends for its discovery on elaborate arguments on questions of fact or
law.
18. Principle underlying in the above quoted decisions, when analyzed
based on the facts of the case at hand, it is evident that, when the appeal was de-
cided by the Tribunal through Annexure A order, the decision was taken based
on the law as it stood then. In a subsequent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court the law was declared as otherwise, based on a change of opinion. Such a
change of opinion of law cannot be taken as a ‘mistake apparent on the face of
the record’ which could be rectified by invoking Section 35C(2) of the Central
Excise Act. Further, such material cannot be used for unsettling the settled posi-
tion attained through disposal of the appeal, alleging that there occurred any
mistake apparent from the face of the record. It cannot be utilized for reopening a
concluded decision, which had attained finality between parties inter se. There-
fore we are of the opinion that the above appeal has to succeed.
19. In the result, the question of law framed is answered in favour of
the appellant and against the Revenue and the above Central Excise Appeal is
hereby allowed to the extent of setting aside the impugned order passed by the
Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Banga-
lore in E/608/2007-DB, dated 26-7-2018. As a result, the original order passed by
the Tribunal (Annexure A) dated 9th September, 2008 would survive.

_______

2020 (372) E.L.T. 714 (Bom.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
K.R. Shriram, J.
UNION OF INDIA
Versus
KISAN RATAN SINGH
Criminal Appeal No. 621 of 2001, decided on 7-1-2020
Prosecution - Offence under Customs Act, 1962 and Imports and
Exports (Control) Act, 1947 - Testimony of panch witness or person who typed
it absent - Panchnama written in English whereas panch witnesses signed in
Hindi and Gujarati, and there was no record that panch witnesses knew Eng-
lish - No details given how panch and prosecution witnesses reached premises
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st June 2020  180