2017 (2) TMI 258 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of mistake - Held that - it is a fact that there is a typographical error in mentioning the impugned order in the first page of the said final order. This prayer of the assessee is acceded to. The impugned order mentioned in the preamble of the Final Order No.40553/2015 dt. 22.5.2015 shall be read as Order-in-Original No.14/2001 (Commr.) dated 20.3.2002. The rectifications sought by respondent-assessee are tantamount to review of the order per se. Tribunal does not have power of review as it becomes functus officio soon after passing the order. Application for ROM dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Department's application for additional time for requantification of demand.
2. Assessee's application for rectification of mistake in the final order.

Analysis:
1. The Department filed an application seeking more time for requantification of the demand as directed in the Final Order. Despite the delay in disposing of the matter by the lower authority, an additional 60 days were granted for adjudication. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of timely compliance with directions and ordered that necessary instructions be issued to prevent delays in de novo adjudication orders.

2. The Assessee filed an application for rectification of mistakes in the final order. The rectifications sought included typographical errors in the order and contentions related to the application of white paper evidence, eligibility for MODVAT benefits, and violation of principles of natural justice. The Tribunal acknowledged the typographical error and rectified it. However, the other rectifications sought by the Assessee were considered tantamount to a review of the order, which the Tribunal stated it did not have the power to conduct as it becomes functus officio after passing the order. The Tribunal cited precedents to support this position and dismissed the Assessee's application, except for the typographical error rectification.

In conclusion, the Tribunal granted the Department additional time for requantification of the demand and rectified the typographical error in the final order. However, the Tribunal dismissed the Assessee's application for rectification of mistakes, except for the typographical error, citing the lack of power for a review after passing the order. The miscellaneous applications were disposed of accordingly.