FINOLEX CABLES LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this application, the appellant submits that there are apparent mistakes in final order No. A/127/2009/SMB/CIV dated 26.3.2009 passed by this bench in the captioned appeal. In the first place, there is a mistake in the quantum of penalty mentioned in the impugned order. The correct amount of penalty is Rs. 14,860/ - and not Rs. 15,860/ - noted in the order. Apart from this mistake, according to the appellant, the above order did not take into account the fact that the duty and interest thereon were paid before issuance of the show -cause notice. It is submitted that the appellant did not suppress any fact before the department with intention to evade payment of duty and, therefore, the Supreme Court's ruling in Dharamendra Textile Processor's case would not be applicable to the present case. In this connection, reliance is placed on UOI v. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills : 2009 (238) ELT 3 (SC). Ld. counsel for the appellant has argued today that, as per the apex court's decision in Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills case, there can be no penalty on the appellant under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act on the facts of this case. Ld. SDR, on the other hand, submits that the final order was passed on merits and therefore the only option for the appellant is to file an appeal against that order. According to him, the present application is not maintainable. He has also referred to the show -cause notice and other records in his bid to show that the appellant is trying to make out a new case by way of this application. With regard to the scope of Sub -section (2) of Section 35C of the Act, which provides for rectification of mistake in final order of the Tribunal, SDR has relied on Hariom Distillers v. CCE, 2010 (250) ELT 334 (All).

(2.) I have given careful consideration to the submissions. With regard to the arithmetic error pointed out by the appellant, I am convinced of the existence of apparent mistake in the final order and accordingly, it is ordered that the amount "14,860/ -" be substituted for the amount "15,860/ -" in the second sentence of the final order.

(3.) IN the result, this application is dismissed except in respect of the arithmetic mistake rectified hereinabove. The final order shall be read accordingly.