2007 (12) TMI 202 - AT - Central Excise

ROM application by Revenue - penalty upon the appellants stands set aside by the Bench on the ground that the matter was not free from doubt and during the relevant period there was a decision by the Tribunal in favour of the assessees revenue relying upon the decision of LB of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Indica Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. is not applicable - setting aside of penalties in the present order cannot be held to be a mistake requiring any rectification - application is rejected

Summary

Issues: Rectification of mistakes in order-in-appeal numbers and appellant names, imposition of penalty by Revenue, applicability of Tribunal's decision on penalty.

In the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad, the issues revolved around rectifying errors in order-in-appeal numbers and appellant names. The appellant pointed out discrepancies in the order, specifically related to the disposal of appeals by M/s. Redson Pharmaceuticals Ltd. The Tribunal rectified the mistakes by including the correct order-in-appeal numbers and amending the name of one of the appellants to M/s. Redson Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. The ROM application filed by the appellant was disposed of accordingly.

Regarding the ROM application filed by the Revenue, seeking imposition of penalties on the appellants, the Tribunal noted that the penalties had been set aside previously due to doubts and a favorable Tribunal decision during the relevant period. The Revenue's plea was based on a Tribunal decision in the case of M/s. Indica Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., which did not address penalty amounts. The Tribunal clarified that the decision in the Indica Laboratories case only discussed legal issues and did not cover penalties. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's ROM application, emphasizing that the penalties set aside in the current order did not constitute a rectifiable mistake.

In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of both applications by rectifying errors in the order-in-appeal and appellant names as pointed out by the appellant. It also clarified the inapplicability of the Tribunal's decision on penalties in the case at hand, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's plea for penalty imposition. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the issues raised and resolved each matter in accordance with the legal principles and precedents cited during the proceedings.