2018 (9) TMI 1186 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of Mistake - Held that - The Tribunal had held that credit is eligible and by typographical error, it has been stated that the disallowance of credit is justified though the impugned order has been set aside on this count. Since being a typographical error, I am of the view that the error needs rectification and the ROM on this count is allowed. The appellant has also brought to the notice of the Tribunal that in respect of credit to the tune of ₹ 30,192/- the appellant had reversed voluntarily the credit on 30.3.2013 before utilization. That the Tribunal did not consider this issue and required to set aside the penalties on this count. ROM Application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rectification of errors in the Final Order dated 26.10.2017 passed by the Tribunal.
2. Consideration of voluntary reversal of credit amounting to ?30,192/- and penalties associated with it.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed a ROM application seeking rectification of errors in the Final Order passed by the Tribunal. The appellant pointed out that though the Tribunal allowed credit for various services contested in the appeal, there was a typographical error in the last paragraph where it stated that the disallowance of credit was 'justified' instead of 'unjustified'. The Tribunal, after considering submissions and relevant case laws, found the error to be typographical and allowed the ROM application to rectify the mistake.

2. The appellant voluntarily reversed a credit amount of ?30,192/- before utilization, which was not considered by the Tribunal. Citing the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Strategic Engineering (P) Ltd., it was argued that reversing credit before utilization exempts the assessee from paying penalties. The Tribunal acknowledged this error and set aside the penalties associated with the reversed credit amount. The Tribunal also noted that appropriate interest would be paid on this amount. The impugned order was modified to reflect the rectification, ensuring that the penalties related to the reversed credit were set aside, in line with legal precedents.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the ROM application to rectify the error in the Final Order and set aside penalties associated with the voluntary reversal of credit amounting to ?30,192/-. The judgment emphasized the importance of accurately reflecting the Tribunal's decisions and ensuring that penalties are appropriately applied based on legal principles and precedents.