2019 (5) TMI 47 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of mistake - mistake apparent on the face of record - HELD THAT - The order has taken into consideration the audit conducted by the department on the appellants records and it has been fairly held on merits that the appellants are entitled to credit they have availed and that the appellants case is squarely applicable in terms of Section 11(A)(2B). Therefore, there is no scope for any confusion in this regard. Mention of the word records and documents in para 7 is a mistake apparent on record. Therefore, in the interest of justice and in order to eliminate any kind of doubt in this regard, necessary rectification is carried out. ROM Application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging the order on the grounds of mistake apparent on record, nature of ROM filed by the appellants, rectification of mistake, applicability of Section 11(A)(2B), remand to jurisdictional authorities for verification of records and documents.

Analysis:

The appellants filed a ROM against the Final Order dated 16.8.2018, arguing that despite the Tribunal's findings on merits, certain doubts arose from the operative portion of the order. They contended that the Department had already conducted an audit in 2007, and the Tribunal rightly observed that the case should be considered under Section 11A(2B) due to the absence of fraud or collusion allegations. The appellants had identified and reported their activities by August 2006, and the requirement for further document verification was unnecessary. They referred to the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat judgment in Shree Rama Multi-Tech Ltd. vs. CCE to support their argument that a mistake apparent on record existed. The appellants also cited Supreme Court cases to emphasize the definition of such an error.

The Authorized Representative argued that the ROM aimed to challenge the order itself rather than rectify a mistake, suggesting it may not be allowed. The appellants had approached the High Court of Karnataka for relief, indicating the nature of their challenge. However, the appellants insisted that the Tribunal could rectify the apparent mistake, expressing willingness to withdraw their appeal if rectification occurred.

Upon review, the Tribunal found that the Final Order had considered the Department's audit and correctly concluded that the appellants were entitled to the credit they claimed under Section 11(A)(2B). The Tribunal clarified that the matter was remanded to the authorities for verification of records and documents related to parts distribution. In an effort to remove any ambiguity, the Tribunal ordered a modification to the operative portion, specifying that verification should be based on records and documents. The Tribunal allowed the ROM application in light of these considerations.

In conclusion, the Tribunal addressed the concerns raised by the appellants regarding the need for document verification and rectified the order to ensure clarity and justice. The decision highlighted the importance of accurate record-keeping and the application of relevant legal provisions in resolving the issues raised by the appellants.