2017 (6) TMI 849 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of mistake - It is the case of revenue in this ROM that appeal number as mentioned in the above reproduced portion of final order is erroneous as the impugned order in this appeal is numbered as 51/2014 (V-1) CE, dt. 28.11.2014 - Held that - the bench has inadvertently mentioned the Order in Appeal as 11/2013 whereas the impugned order specifically indicates that it is the appeal number 11/2013 filed by appellant before Commissioner of Appeals and Order in Appeal mentioned in the order is 51/2014(V-1 )CE, dt. 28.11.2014 - the final order No. A/31450/2016, dt 19.12.2016 the first sentence is to be read as The above appeal arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 51/2014(V-1) CE, dated 28.11.2014 - ROM application allowed.

Summary

Issues involved: Rectification of mistake in the final order due to an error in mentioning the appeal number.

Analysis:

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Hyderabad received an application from the revenue seeking rectification of a mistake in Final Order No. A-31450/2016, dated 19.12.2016. The issue arose from an error in referencing the appeal number in the final order. Upon hearing both parties, it was observed that the bench had incorrectly referred to the Order in Appeal as 11/2013, whereas the actual appeal number was 51/2014 (V-1) CE, dated 28.11.2014. The impugned order clearly stated the correct appeal number as 11/2013 filed by the appellant before the Commissioner of Appeals, and the Order in Appeal was "51/2014(V-1) CE, dt. 28.11.2014."

The Tribunal acknowledged the inadvertent error in mentioning the incorrect Order in Appeal in the final order issued by the bench. Consequently, the rectification of mistake application was allowed, and the first sentence of the final order was corrected to accurately reflect the appeal arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 51/2014(V-1) CE, dated 28.11.2014. The rectification was made to ensure the accuracy and clarity of the judicial record, rectifying the mistake in the initial final order to align with the correct appeal number and Order in Appeal.

In conclusion, the rectification of mistake application was granted by the Tribunal to correct the error in referencing the appeal number in the final order. By rectifying the mistake and accurately reflecting the appeal number and Order in Appeal, the judicial record was amended to ensure precision and adherence to the correct legal proceedings and documentation. The rectification process aimed to maintain the integrity and accuracy of the legal record, addressing the inadvertent error in the initial final order to align with the factual appeal details.