Rectification granted: Redemption fine corrected to intended amount, highlighting importance of accurate record-keeping and court officer responsibility.

The Tribunal allowed the rectification application, correcting the redemption fine amount from Rs. 2 lakhs to the intended Rs. 1 lac. The decision emphasized the significance of precise record-keeping and the responsibility of court officers to aid in reaching accurate conclusions. Rectification was deemed essential to align the written order with the actual decision announced in open Court, ensuring the integrity and accuracy of the legal process.

---

---

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.

---