H.R. Syiem, J.

1. This is an undated application for rectification by M/s Entremonde Polycoaters Private Limited, seeking certain amendments in the order of this Tribunal No. 389/83-C dated 20-12-83 (Appeal No. 369/78-C). Considerable arguments were put forward by the learned counsel for M/s. Entremonde to show that there had been errors on the face of the record which required rectification. The main error which the learned counsel said had taken place in the Tribunal's order was that a coloured sheet of plastic had been laminated to the sheet of paper to produce the coloured sheet of paper. This is not apparent from any fact in the proceedings that had gone before the lower authorities. The process of manufacture was that coloured plastic was applied as a coating to the paper and this gave an appearance of colour to the paper. It is, therefore, not correct to say that a sheet of coloured plastic had been stuck to the paper to give it a coloured appearance.

2. He disputed the statement that the base paper had paid duty under Item 17(1) under Central Excise Tariff. The Department's argument on this had not found favour. There was an order of 1977 which had gone in favour of the manufacturer in respect of similar goods. He argued that rectification can be made when a point of submission had not been covered or dealt with. He cited in support of his submission, [1970] 75 ITR Income-tax Officer, Lucknow v. Singar Singh and Sons decided by the Allahabad High Court on 5th August 1969. By this judgment, the High Court ruled that the Tribunal had inherent powers to review its order in order to correct a wrong done to a party. In that case, the Income-tax Tribunal did not give a decision on the question of adjustments of standard profits. By this omission the Tribunal did wrong to the party and, therefore, said the High Court, it was necessary for it to review its own order, when such an order caused prejudice to the party.

3. The review notice had been issued by the Govt. without application of mind. The letter of the Collector to the Govt, which led to issue of this review notice shows clearly that the Govt. had simply echoed the Collector's opinion and had not applied its own independent mind. The Government issued a review notice in a later case, but decided that there was no case for review. There was no logical reason for this complete reversal of opinion. The only conclusion possible, therefore, was that the official who issued the notice of review was guided and influenced only by the Collector's letter, which M/s. Entremonde had seen and inspected.

4. It is not true that the base paper had paid duty under Item No. 17(1). M/s. Entremonde can produce gate passes to prove payment of duty under 17(2). If this is accepted their product would be covered by the decision of this Tribunal in M/s. Golden Paper Order No. 109/83-C dated 25th May, 1983.

5. He was unable to understand the finding of the Assistant Collector in which he said that the base paper was printing and writing paper whereas in the order he came to the conclusion that the product was assessable under 17(2).

6. The learned counsel for the Deptt. Mr. Jain began by saying no gate passes proving that the base paper was assessed under Item 17(2) can be accepted now, as no such evidence was produced at the beginning. Furthermore, there is no way we can be certain that the paper in the finished goods under dispute were of the same category as those cleared under the gate passes that the learned counsel for M/s. Entremonde wishes to produce. And we cannot forget that the factory may have been buying all kinds of paper, some cleared under 17(1) and others cleared under 17(2), and so on. It is not possible at this stage to go by gate passes that M/s. Entremonde can produce. It is enough for our purpose that the Assistant Collector gave a definite finding in his order that the base paper was printing and writing paper and this fact went unchallenged by M/s. Entremonde till now.