2018 (12) TMI 1286 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of Mistake - Held that - The figures mentioned in the above reproduced para seem to be incorrect after going through the Order-in-Original in the case in hand - here is an error apparent on the face of the record, which is rectified - application for ROM allowed.

Summary

Issues: Rectification of mistake in the Final Order

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an application filed for the rectification of a mistake in the Final Order dated 21.07.2014. The error was identified in Para 2.1 of the Final Order, which incorrectly stated the duty demand and penalties imposed on the appellant. After a thorough review, it was acknowledged that the figures mentioned in the original order were inaccurate. The Tribunal found an error apparent on the face of the records and proceeded to rectify the mistake by revising Para 2.1 of the Order to reflect the correct duty demand, penalty, and period involved. The corrected figures now state a duty demand of ?6,50,41,453/-, imposition of a penalty of ?2 lakhs under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, and the addition of interest on the confirmed duty liability for the period from February 2012 to September 2012.

The Tribunal, comprising Mr. M.V. Ravindran and Mr. P. Venkata Subba Rao, considered the submissions made by Shri G. Prahlad, Advocate for the Appellant, and Shri B. Guna Ranjan, Superintendent/AR for the Respondent. Upon hearing both sides and examining the Order-in-Original, the Tribunal concluded that a typographical error had indeed occurred in the original Final Order. The rectification was necessary to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the judicial records. Consequently, the application for rectification of mistake was disposed of by correcting Para 2.1 of the Order to reflect the accurate details regarding duty demand, penalties, and the relevant period, thereby providing clarity and precision to the judicial pronouncement. The rectification process was conducted in an open court session, emphasizing transparency and adherence to due process in rectifying errors in legal judgments.