2010 (9) TMI 1014 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Rectification of error apparent on record in the Final Order regarding the conclusion of dealing with the same issue in two different orders; Mistaken notation of finality of one order which was under appeal.

Analysis:
1. The Revenue filed a ROM application seeking rectification of an error apparent in the Final Order, where it was concluded that two different orders dealt with the same issue. The Tribunal noted that the show cause notices underlying the orders addressed distinct matters - one concerning related persons under Central Excise Valuation Rules and the other about undervaluation of goods. The Tribunal acknowledged the error in reproducing certain paragraphs and found that the orders did not deal with the same issue as initially determined.

2. Another ground raised in the application was the mistaken notation in the Final Order that one of the orders had attained finality, while the department had actually filed an appeal against it. After hearing both sides and examining the case records, the Tribunal found that the order had not reached finality as an appeal was pending. This error was acknowledged, and the ROM application was allowed for the recall of the impugned order.

3. The Tribunal's detailed analysis of the case records and submissions revealed discrepancies in the initial conclusion regarding the similarity of issues addressed in the two orders. By carefully examining the content of the orders and the show cause notices, it was established that the Tribunal's earlier findings were incorrect. Additionally, the Tribunal corrected the error regarding the finality of one order by considering the pending appeal, leading to the decision to allow the ROM application and recall the impugned order.

4. In conclusion, the Tribunal's thorough review of the case records and submissions from both parties resulted in the acknowledgment of errors in the Final Order. By rectifying the misconceptions regarding the issues addressed in the orders and the finality of one of them, the Tribunal demonstrated a commitment to ensuring accuracy and fairness in its judgments. The decision to allow the ROM application and recall the impugned order exemplifies the Tribunal's dedication to upholding legal principles and rectifying mistakes to maintain procedural integrity.