2019 (4) TMI 7 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of mistake - typographical error - Held that - This Tribunal after considering all aspects of the case set aside the order of the adjudicating authority and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication and the scope of which has been further expanded in the order of the Hon ble Supreme Court, therefore, we do not find any merit in the objection of the learned Counsel for the Revenue, that unless the typographical rectification of the amount shown in the Order is carried out, the order may be misunderstood by the adjudicating authority. Further such apprehension has been allayed by the Ld. advocate for the respondent mentioning that they would not take such a plea in the de novo proceeding. Deciding the issues whether the typographical error in mentioning the amount at para one of the order dt.31.7.2018 of this Tribunal is necessary and whether it would be within the scope of the Tribunal at this stage, would be of more academic in nature, instead of causing any hindrance in the de novo proceeding, hence, not resorted to - ROM Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of typographical error in the order dated 31/07/2018.

Analysis:
The Revenue sought rectification of a typographical error in the order dated 31/07/2018, concerning the total amount involved in five show-cause notices. The Revenue contended that the total amount was &8377; 138.00 crore, but it was mistakenly mentioned as &8377; 1.38 crore in the order. The Respondents had appealed to the Supreme Court against the Tribunal's Remand Order, and the Supreme Court remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority. The Respondents argued that since the Tribunal's order merged with the Supreme Court's order, there was no need for rectification. The Senior Counsel for the Revenue expressed concerns that the Respondents might misinterpret the order and limit the demands to &8377; 1.38 crore instead of &8377; 138.00 crore. However, the Respondent clarified that they would not make such an argument before the adjudicating authority.

Considering the submissions, the Tribunal noted that the matter had been remanded for fresh adjudication, with the scope expanded by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's objection, as the Respondents assured they would not restrict the demand to &8377; 1.38 crore in the fresh proceedings. The Tribunal concluded that rectifying the typographical error at this stage would be more academic than practical and could potentially hinder the de novo proceeding. Therefore, the Tribunal decided not to resort to rectifying the error, disposing of the Revenue's application accordingly.