9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (2) TMI 642 - AT - Central ExciseRectification of mistake - error in as much as this Bench set aside the penalty under Section 11AC whereas the Adjudicating Authority in the order impugned imposed the penalty under Rule 13 of CCR 2002 - Held that - the penalty was imposed under Rule 13(2) and Section 11AC, Rule 13(2) and Section 11AC are parimateria, therefore even though in the Tribunal s Order while setting aside the penalty mentioned to Section 11AC, it does not lead to any error apparent on record - no error apparent on record crept out in this Tribunal order - ROM Application dismissed.
Issues: Rectification of mistake regarding penalty imposition under Rule 13 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 instead of Section 11AC.
Analysis: The judgment revolves around the rectification of a mistake pointed out by the Revenue regarding the imposition of a penalty under Rule 13 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002, instead of Section 11AC. The Revenue contended that the penalty under Rule 13 was correctly maintained as the ingredients for this penalty differed from those required for Section 11AC. The respondent argued that the penalty was imposed correctly under Rule 13 and Section 11AC, as mentioned in the Adjudicating Authority's order. The Tribunal analyzed the submissions and found that the Adjudication order imposed a penalty under Rule 13(2) and Section 11AC, which are considered parimateria. The Tribunal concluded that even though the penalty was mentioned under Section 11AC in their order, it did not constitute an error apparent on the record. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the Adjudicating Authority had imposed an equal amount of penalty under Rule 13 without specifying a sub-rule, further supporting the correctness of mentioning Section 11AC in the Tribunal's order. The judgment emphasized that no malafide intent was established on the respondent's part, leading to the setting aside of the penalty under Rule 13 and Section 11AC. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's application for rectification of mistake, affirming that no error was evident in their order.
|
