2019 (3) TMI 850 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of mistake - typographical error or not - Held that- All the mistakes as mentioned in para (a), (b) and (c) are merely typographical in nature. Resultantly, the necessary changes be made in the impugned final order - ROM application allowed.

Summary

Issues: Rectification of mistakes in the final order

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around an application for the rectification of mistakes in the final order. The applicant pointed out several errors in the order, including references to incorrect legal provisions and sections. The mistakes identified were related to the Banking Regulation Act, the definition of NBFC under the RBI Act, and the section defining 'Financial Institution' under the RBI Act. The Department acknowledged these mistakes as typographical errors.

Upon examination, the tribunal found that the Banking Regulation Act was actually enacted in 1949, not 1959 as mentioned in the order. Similarly, the correct section defining NBFC under the RBI Act was identified as Section 45 (I) (F) instead of Section 55(f) as initially stated. Additionally, the section referring to the definition of 'Financial Institution' was clarified to be under Clause (C) of Section 45(I) of the RBI Act, not Clause (F) as previously indicated.

Consequently, the tribunal concluded that the errors highlighted were indeed typographical in nature. The necessary corrections were ordered to be made in specific lines and paragraph numbers of the final order. The application for rectification was allowed, and it was directed that a fresh order be issued after incorporating the specified corrections in the original order. The decision was pronounced in open court, bringing the matter to a close.