2019 (3) TMI 409 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of mistake - typographical error or not - Held that - The incorrect figures as pointed by Revenue has also been accepted by learned Consultant appearing for the assessee-appellant. Since the error in the final order is typographical in nature, the order dated 13.03.2018 passed by this Tribunal should be rectified in the interest of justice. Rectification of mistake - appellant contended that the Tribunal has not specifically recorded any findings with regard to the imposition of penalty - Held that - There is no specific order / observations being recorded by this Tribunal for disposal of the appeal. Thus, at this juncture, prayer of the assessee-appellant for rectification of mistake cannot be considered. Appeal of Revenue allowed - the application filed by assessee-appellant is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rectification of mistake in the final order regarding incorrect amounts mentioned.
2. Imposition of penalty on the appellant.

Rectification of Mistake:
The judgment revolves around rectification of mistakes in the final order passed by the Tribunal. The Revenue pointed out typographical errors in the amounts mentioned in the order, which were accepted by the consultant for the appellant. The incorrect figures were acknowledged to be &8377; 2,06,633/- instead of &8377; 20,663/- and &8377; 206/- instead of &8377; 4,409/-. The Tribunal, considering the typographical nature of the errors, decided to rectify the order in the interest of justice. Consequently, the final order was modified to reflect the correct amounts as pointed out by the Revenue.

Imposition of Penalty:
The appellant contended that the Tribunal did not specifically record any findings regarding the imposition of a penalty. The appellant claimed that during the pronouncement of the order in open court, the Tribunal had orally stated that no penalty would be imposed. However, upon reviewing the case records, the Tribunal found no specific order or observations regarding the penalty imposition. As a result, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant's prayer for rectification of the alleged mistake related to the imposition of a penalty could not be considered. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue, while dismissing the application filed by the appellant.

In summary, the judgment primarily dealt with rectifying typographical errors in the final order concerning the incorrect amounts mentioned. The Tribunal rectified the order to reflect the accurate figures highlighted by the Revenue. Additionally, the issue of the imposition of a penalty on the appellant was raised by the appellant, who claimed that no penalty should be imposed based on oral observations made during the order pronouncement. However, since no specific findings or orders regarding the penalty were recorded in the case records, the Tribunal dismissed the appellant's request for rectification concerning the penalty imposition.