2019 (11) TMI 1607 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of mistake - error apparent on the face of record - inclusion of freight charges in the assessable value - place of removal - HELD THAT - On perusal of para 6 of the impugned final order, though it is stated that the place of removal is the buyer‟s premises and the freight charges have been included in the assessable value for discharging the excise duty, it has been noted that the invoices shows separate freight charges. The same should have been stated that no separate freight charges have been collected from the customers . This is an error apparent on the face of record, which requires rectification. Accordingly, the impugned order is modified to the extent of adding the word not‟ in the sentence in para 6 of the impugned order. The said sentence is modified and shall be read as invoices clearly show that separate freight charges have not been collected from the customers. ROM application allowed.

Summary

Issues: Rectification of Mistakes in Final Order

Analysis:
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI considered the ROM applications filed by the assessee seeking rectification of alleged mistakes in the final order. The counsel for the appellant pointed out an error in para 6 of the Final Order, where it was noted that separate freight charges were collected from customers, contrary to the actual scenario where freight charges were included in the assessable value. The Tribunal acknowledged this error as apparent on the face of the record and modified the impugned order to rectify the mistake. Specifically, the Tribunal amended the sentence in para 6 to accurately reflect that no separate freight charges had been collected from customers, aligning with the factual position. As a result, the ROM applications were allowed, and the impugned order was appropriately rectified.

The key contention revolved around the discrepancy in the treatment of freight charges in the Final Order, with the Tribunal recognizing the need for correction due to the error in stating that separate freight charges were collected from customers. By rectifying this mistake and clarifying that no separate freight charges were actually collected, the Tribunal ensured the accuracy and consistency of the order with the factual circumstances presented by the appellant. This rectification was crucial to uphold the integrity and correctness of the decision, aligning it with the actual events and legal principles involved in the case.

The learned counsel for the appellant highlighted the specific error in the Final Order related to the treatment of freight charges, emphasizing the importance of rectifying this mistake to align the order with the factual position. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, agreed with the appellant's submission and recognized the need for rectification to ensure the accuracy and correctness of the order. By modifying the impugned order to reflect the accurate position that no separate freight charges were collected from customers, the Tribunal addressed the error and maintained the consistency and integrity of the decision-making process. This meticulous rectification process underscored the Tribunal's commitment to upholding fairness and justice in the adjudication of the case.