2018 (12) TMI 1171 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification by way of corrigendum - circular no. 502/68/99-CX dated 16th December 1999 - Held that - The demand of duty that has been confirmed is limited to the period from 16th December 1998 to 31st December 1998 with the remaining demand not confirmed. All that corrigendum has done is to clarify that conclusion instead of leaving it to inference owing to a specific reference in the operative portion of the impugned order. As the impugned order has rendered a finding on non-leviability of the duty for the period from January 1999 to January 2000 which is the subject-matter of show cause notice dated 28th April 2000, it cannot be said that the corrigendum was anything more than correction of mere clerical mistake - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against order-in-original limiting duty demand for a specific period.
2. Validity of corrigendum to the impugned order.
3. Interpretation of circular regarding rectifiability of errors in orders.

Analysis:
1. The appeal by Revenue challenges an order-in-original limiting the duty demand for a specific period, contrary to the proposals in two show cause notices. The impugned order only confirmed the demand for a latter period, omitting reference to the earlier period. The adjudicating authority issued a corrigendum dropping the demand for the earlier period, which was contested by Revenue citing a circular from the Central Board of Excise & Customs. The challenge was brought before the Appellate Tribunal for consideration.

2. The Appellate Tribunal noted that the impugned order addressed both show cause notices, finding the demand for the period January 1999 to January 2000 in one notice could not be upheld, while confirming the demand for the overlapping period between 16th and 31st December 1998. The corrigendum clarified the confirmed demand for the latter period, aligning with the findings in the impugned order. The Tribunal emphasized that the corrigendum corrected a clerical mistake and did not alter the substance of the order.

3. The Tribunal examined the circular referenced by the Revenue, which highlighted that significant changes in an order post-issuance are not mere clerical errors and cannot be rectified by corrigendum. However, in this case, as the impugned order had already addressed the non-leviability of duty for the period covered in one of the show cause notices, the corrigendum was deemed a legitimate correction of a clerical mistake. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of Revenue, upholding the impugned order's findings on duty demand for the specified period.

This judgment underscores the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and the significance of circulars issued by regulatory authorities in interpreting and applying legal principles in tax matters.