Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be fully migrated on 31-July-2025 at 23:59:59
After this date, all services will be available exclusively on our new platform.
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please let us know
via our feedback form
, with specific details, so we can address them promptly.
Home
2005 (7) TMI 424 - AT - Central Excise
Issues: Rectification of mistake in a legal judgment regarding the redemption fine amount.
In this case, M/s. Stericat Gutstrings P. Ltd. filed an application for rectification of a mistake in the final order where the redemption fine was incorrectly stated as Rs. 2 lakhs instead of Rs. 1 lac. The appellant's counsel argued that this typographical error was apparent on the face of the record and could be rectified under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, citing a previous Tribunal decision supporting rectification for such errors. The respondent's representative confirmed that in his records, the correct reduced fine amount was indeed Rs. 1 lac, as per his own handwritten notes. During the proceedings, a Senior Private Secretary, who had taken dictation on the date of the decision, explained that due to doubts arising from a cutting in the amount recorded in her notebook, she mistakenly typed the redemption fine as Rs. 2 lakhs instead of Rs. 1 lac. However, both the respondent's representative and the appellant's counsel, who are officers of the Court, confirmed that the correct amount dictated in the open Court was Rs. 1 lac. Based on this confirmation from both parties, the Tribunal concluded that there was a typographical mistake in the order, which was apparent from the records. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the rectification application, correcting the amount mentioned in the final order to reflect the intended Rs. 1 lac redemption fine instead of Rs. 2 lakhs. The judgment highlighted the importance of accurate record-keeping and the duty of all court officers to assist in reaching the correct conclusions. The rectification was deemed necessary to align the written order with the actual decision pronounced in the open Court, ensuring the accuracy and integrity of the legal process.
|