2018 (8) TMI 310 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of Mistake - this Tribunal has mentioned that the appeal filed by M/s Airvision India Pvt. Ltd, against the impugned order is dismissed, whereas, the said appeal has been filed by the Revenue, therefore, to that part it is to rectify as appeal filed by the Revenue against M/s Airvision India Pvt. Ltd. is dismissed. Held that - Admittedly, the mistake apparent on record has been pointed out by the ld. AR found to be correct, therefore, para 10 of the order read as under Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue against M/s Airvision India Pvt. Ltd. is dismissed. This Tribunal has not given any finding for imposition of penalty on M/s D R Polymers, therefore, to that extent, order is re-called and this Tribunal is required to hear the parties for imposition of penalty on M/s D R Polymers. The application for rectification of mistake is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of mistake in the order dated 24.08.2016 regarding the dismissal of the appeal filed by the Revenue against M/s Airvision India Pvt. Ltd. and the need for imposition of penalty on M/s D R Polymers for denial of cenvat credit.

Analysis:
The judgment by Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHANDIGARH, delivered by Member (Judicial) Mr. Ashok Jindal, addresses the application for rectification of mistake in the order dated 24.08.2016. The Tribunal acknowledged the error in para 10 of the order where it incorrectly mentioned the dismissal of the appeal filed by M/s Airvision India Pvt. Ltd. instead of the Revenue. The rectification was deemed necessary to accurately reflect that the appeal filed by the Revenue against M/s Airvision India Pvt. Ltd. is dismissed.

Moreover, the Tribunal noted another discrepancy in the order related to the denial of cenvat credit to manufacturer buyers who had taken credit based on invoices issued by M/s D R Polymers. The lower authorities did not impose any penalty on M/s D R Polymers despite the partial disallowance of cenvat credit. The Tribunal recognized the oversight in not addressing the imposition of penalty on M/s D R Polymers and deemed it essential to rectify this aspect of the order.

After hearing the parties and considering their submissions, the Tribunal found the mistakes pointed out by the ld. AR to be correct. Consequently, the Tribunal rectified para 10 of the order to accurately reflect the dismissal of the appeal filed by the Revenue against M/s Airvision India Pvt. Ltd. Additionally, the Tribunal acknowledged the absence of a finding regarding the imposition of penalty on M/s D R Polymers and decided to recall the order to address this issue. The Tribunal directed the Registry to list the appeal filed by the Revenue against M/s D R Polymers for further consideration or the issue of imposition of penalty on a specified date.

In conclusion, the application for rectification of mistake was allowed by the Tribunal, emphasizing the importance of ensuring accuracy in the orders and addressing all relevant issues, such as rectifying errors in party names and considering penalties where necessary to maintain the integrity of the legal process.