2018 (6) TMI 986 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of Mistake application - Held that - This Tribunal in para 5 in its order dated 29.12.2017 stated that duty and interest is sustainable. However, on perusal of record, we find that firstly there was no interest proposed in the show-cause notice nor it is demanded in the adjudication order - in para 5, the last line starting from In view of the above order, the merit of the case was decided against the appellant, therefore demand of duty and interest thereon is sustainable is rectified and read as In view of the above order, the merit of the case was decided against the appellant, therefore demand of duty is sustainable . Penalty u/r 173Q of CER - Held that - The bona fide belief cannot be entertained by the applicant - Since this Tribunal has given a detailed finding, it cannot be amount to an apparent error on record. Therefore, no case is made out for rectification of mistake with regard to penalty sustained under Rule 173Q. As regards mention of Section 173Q in para 6 of the order, we find that this is an apparent error on record. Therefore, Section 173Q may be read as Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 . ROM application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of mistake in the Tribunal's order regarding demand duty and interest, penalty imposed under Rule 173Q, mention of Section 173Q instead of Rule 173Q in the order.

Rectification of Mistake - Demand Duty and Interest:
The applicant sought rectification of a mistake in the Tribunal's order stating that "demand duty and interest thereon is sustainable." The applicant argued that no interest was proposed in the show-cause notice or the order. They contended that interest under Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act is chargeable only after three months from the determination of duty, which was paid within the stipulated time period in this case. The Tribunal agreed that interest was not chargeable and rectified the order to state that only the demand of duty is sustainable.

Penalty Imposed under Rule 173Q:
The applicant challenged the penalty imposed under Rule 173Q, claiming a bona fide belief in claiming an exemption notification. They cited a previous Tribunal order acknowledging their bona fide belief. However, the Tribunal found that in the present case, the applicant continued to avail the exemption despite the confirmation of demand for the past period, leading to a detailed finding rebutting the claim of bona fide belief. The Tribunal held that no rectification of mistake was warranted regarding the penalty sustained under Rule 173Q.

Mention of Section 173Q in the Order:
The Tribunal noted an apparent error in the order where Section 173Q was mentioned instead of Rule 173Q. The Tribunal corrected this error, stating that 'Section 173Q' should be read as 'Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.'

In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the rectification of mistake application based on the above discussions, with the pronouncement made in court on 25/5/2018.