9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 763 - AT - Central ExciseRectification of Mistake - Held that - In the order dt.17.8.2017, at fourth line, after the word factory, it should be read as Marine Insurance Charges, GTA for Export Service and Effluent Treatment Service and at seventh line the case laws, namely, VFC Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs CCE Vadodara Order No. A/10953/2017 in relation to Marine Insurance, Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-op. Ltd. vs Commr. of Trade Tax, Lucknow 2015 (315) ELT 210 (All.) in relation to Effluent Treatment Plant Service and GTA Service for Export of the goods the case is covered in the case of Anar Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. vs CCE Ahmedabad 2011 (24) STR 32 (Tri.Amd), be added - order is rectified accordingly - ROM Application allowed.
Issues: Rectification of mistake apparent on the face of the order
The judgment deals with an application seeking rectification of a mistake apparent on the face of the order dated 17.08.2017. The advocate for the applicant pointed out that certain services and case laws were mentioned in the order but were missing in the typed copy. Specifically, the services of 'Marine Insurance Charges, GTA for Export Service, and Effluent Treatment Service' were to be added after the word 'factory' in the order. Additionally, case laws related to these services were to be included. The advocate requested the rectification of the order to reflect these corrections. The Revenue's representative had no objection to the rectification. Consequently, the order was rectified as requested, with the necessary additions made to accurately reflect the intended content. The modification was allowed, and the rectification was made in accordance with the submissions. In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD involved the rectification of a mistake apparent on the face of the order dated 17.08.2017. The rectification was sought to include specific services and case laws that were inadvertently omitted in the typed copy of the order. Both parties were heard, and the rectification was made as requested by the applicant's advocate, with no objection from the Revenue's representative. The rectification was necessary to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the order, and it was duly allowed by the Tribunal.
|
