2019 (5) TMI 50 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of mistake - error apparent on the face of record - HELD THAT - Necessary rectification done in para-6 of the Final Order - HELD THAT - The application for rectification of mistake is disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
Rectification of mistake in Final Order No. A/30414/2019 dated 21.02.2019 in Appeal No. E/2959/2011.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT HYDERABAD, delivered by Mr. P. Venkata Subba Rao, Member (Technical), addresses the application for rectification of mistake filed by the appellant regarding the Final Order. The appellant, represented by Shri P. Bhaskar Reddy, sought correction of the mistake in the amounts confirmed by the lower authorities as mentioned in para-6 of the Final Order. Upon hearing both sides and examining the records, it was acknowledged that the amounts mentioned in the Final Order were incorrectly stated. The Tribunal directed the correction in para-6, specifying that the demand of "differential duty of ?16,89,829/- under Sub-section 2 of Section 11A" should be read instead of the previous wording. Additionally, it was noted that the penalty imposed should be "?16,89,829/- under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules 2002 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act 1944." The rectification of mistake was disposed of based on the corrections made in the Final Order.

This judgment highlights the importance of accuracy in legal documentation and the process of rectification when errors are identified. The Tribunal's decision to rectify the mistake in the Final Order demonstrates a commitment to ensuring precision and clarity in legal proceedings. The correction made in para-6 of the Final Order aligns the stated amounts with the appropriate legal provisions, thereby upholding the integrity of the judicial process. The application for rectification was handled efficiently, emphasizing the Tribunal's dedication to addressing discrepancies promptly and maintaining the accuracy of legal records. The judgment serves as a reminder of the significance of meticulousness in legal proceedings and the mechanisms available to rectify errors for the sake of procedural fairness and legal correctness.