Correction of tribunal order aligned captive consumption exemption analysis with final products, not inputs, as the relevant goods.

The Tribunal corrected an earlier final order to align the recorded finding with the exemption analysis actually applied. The disputed sentence had wrongly suggested that the inputs were the goods on which additional duty of excise was not leviable for captive consumption, whereas the Tribunal had proceeded on the basis that the final products were the relevant goods for that exemption issue. The correction did not alter the substantive reasoning; it only revised the wording so the order accurately reflected the intended finding. The correction application was allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the last sentence in the earlier final order required correction to reflect that the final products, and not the inputs, were the goods on which additional duty of excise was not leviable for the purpose of the captive consumption exemption.

Analysis: The earlier order had proceeded on the basis that the inputs were leviable to basic duty and no additional duty of excise was leviable thereon, but the reasoning accepted by the Tribunal was that the denial of the captive consumption benefit was sought on the footing that the final products were exempt from additional duty of excise. The applicants showed that the sentence in the earlier order did not correctly state the Tribunal's finding, because the exemption analysis related to the final products and not to the inputs. The correction sought was therefore only to align the text of the order with the intended finding already recorded.

Conclusion: The correction was warranted and the application was allowed.

---