2019 (3) TMI 1490 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of mistake - error apparent on the face of record or not - Held that - The issue that came up in appeal was thoroughly analyzed and interference was made with the impugned Order by relying on the ratio laid down by the Hon ble High Court of Madras in the case of the same respondent 2013 (12) TMI 817 - MADRAS HIGH COURT . It is also noted that the case in appeal was very much similar to the case before the Hon ble High Court, which was relied upon. Thus, the impugned Order having been disposed on merits, there is no error on the face of record that requires rectification.

Summary

Issues: Rectification of Mistake (ROM) application regarding penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

The judgment pertains to a Rectification of Mistake (ROM) application filed by the assessee regarding a penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant's counsel argued that on the date of the appeal hearing, the applicant could not appear, and the penalty was enhanced ex parte. The Department had filed an appeal against the reduced penalty, which was decided by the Tribunal. The Department contended that the ROM application lacked merit as it did not specify any apparent error on record. The Tribunal noted that the appeal was disposed of by restoring the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority, as the applicant did not appear despite notices. The Final Order was passed after considering the merits of the case and analyzing the issue thoroughly. The Order relied on a precedent set by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in a similar case involving the same respondent. The Tribunal concluded that since the impugned Order was disposed of on merits, there was no error requiring rectification, and thus dismissed the ROM application.