2018 (7) TMI 84 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of mistake - it was alleged that the Tribunal s Final Order has not specifically mentioned the respective values as mentioned in paras 5,6,7 & 8 of the adjudication order. In the said final order the value pertaining to para-8 (DXN Puducherry) has been mentioned and only the respective para numbers in regard to other three values have been mentioned without mentioning the value. Held that - Though the Tribunal had mentioned the value of ₹ 15,44,70,060/- but omitted to mention para-8 in the said paragraph. Similarly, though, the para nos. 5,6,7 were mentioned, the corresponding values were omitted to be mentioned. This is an error apparent on the face of record and requires rectification - ROM application allowed.

Summary

Issues: Rectification of mistake in Final Order

Analysis:
The case involves applications seeking rectification of a mistake in Final Order No. 42811-42821/2017. The Revenue filed the applications to rectify an error apparent on the face of the record in the mentioned order. The mistake pertained to the value of goods and the corresponding paras in the adjudication order.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal's final order incorrectly mentioned the value of goods seized at DXN Puducherry in para-19, which actually pertained to para-8 of the adjudication order. The value of goods mentioned in the Order-in-Original No. 04/2005 by the Commissioner was different from what was reflected in the Tribunal's final order. The applicant contended that the error was apparent on the face of the record and required rectification to accurately reflect the values mentioned in the adjudication order.

On the other hand, the respondent's advocate acknowledged that there was indeed an error apparent on the face of the record. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, examined the impugned order and found that the error was in the mention of values and corresponding paras in para-19. The Tribunal noted that the values for paras 5, 6, 7, and 8 were not correctly reflected in the final order, leading to the need for rectification.

In its final decision, the Tribunal ordered the modification of the impugned Final Order to accurately reflect the values of goods mentioned in paras 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the adjudication order. The Tribunal specified the correct values and paras in the modified order to rectify the error apparent on the face of the record. Consequently, the applications for rectification of mistake were allowed in the terms specified by the Tribunal.