2016 (6) TMI 508 - AT - Central Excise

Period of limitation - Seeking correction of typographical/clerical error - preamble recorded in the CESTAT order suffers from obvious mistake Held that - the provisions of Section 35C(2) clearly reveals that this sub-section deals with rectification of mistake in the order and allows amendment of the order with a view to rectifying mistake apparent from the record. In the present case the appellant is not seeking any amendment to the order or rectification of any mistake in the order. Indeed there is no mistake in the order of the Tribunal which, as stated, disposed of Appeals No. E/2988/2007 and E/1093/2008. Correcting the mistake pointed out because Appeal No. E/1093/2008 did not arise out of order-in-original No. 21/10/Comm/RP/07 dated 13.8.2007 passed by Central Excise Commissioner, Rohtak (as recorded in the preamble part of the order) but admittedly arose out of order-in-original No. 10/2008 dated 28.2.2008 passed by Commissioner, Central Excise, Delhi-I, does not tantamount to amending the order which remains unaltered. Therefore, it is pointless to indulge in an elaborate discussion on the various contentions raised by Revenue to assert that the Tribunal cannot amend or rectify mistake in the order after six months, because, to repeat, no amendment of the order is being sought. ROM applocation allowed

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of typographical error in the preamble of CESTAT Order.

Analysis:
The appellant filed a misc. application seeking rectification of a typographical error in the preamble of a CESTAT order. The preamble incorrectly stated that two appeals arose from the same order-in-original, while in reality, they arose from different orders. The appellant argued that the correction was necessary for the sake of accuracy and not for reconsideration of the merits of the case. Reference was made to the Supreme Court judgment in Sunitadevi Singhania Hospital Trust Vs. UOI, emphasizing the Tribunal's inherent power to rectify mistakes to ensure justice between parties. Another Supreme Court judgment in Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. Vs. CIT, New Delhi was also cited.

The respondent, however, contended that under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, a time limit of six months is prescribed for rectification of mistakes, and as this period had lapsed, the Tribunal lacked the authority to order the correction. Various judgments, including one from the Karnataka High Court, were cited to support this argument.

Upon considering both sides, the Tribunal found that the preamble indeed contained an obvious mistake, as the two appeals arose from different orders. The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of Section 35C(2) of the Excise Act, which allow for rectification of mistakes within six months from the date of the order. However, in this case, the appellant was not seeking an amendment to the order itself but a correction in the preamble for accuracy. The Tribunal pointed out that Rule 41 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules empowers it to make necessary orders to secure the ends of justice.

Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the misc. application and ordered the correction in the preamble to accurately reflect the orders from which the appeals arose. The correction was made in accordance with Rule 41 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules.

This detailed analysis of the legal judgment highlights the arguments presented by both parties, the relevant legal provisions, and the Tribunal's decision in rectifying the typographical error in the CESTAT order's preamble to ensure accuracy and justice between the parties involved.