Tribunal rejects rectification applications under Central Excise Act - Service and filing requirements upheld.

The Tribunal rejected the applications seeking rectification of a mistake in the Final Order under Section 35C (1)(a) of the Central Excise Act 1944. Despite arguments raised by the applicants regarding the invalid service of the Adjudication Order, the Tribunal found no merit in their claims. It was determined that the Order-in-Original was served on the company, and the appeal was filed within the stipulated period. The Tribunal concluded that there was no dispute over the facts of service and filing of the appeal, leading to the rejection of the rectification applications.

---

---

Issues:
Rectification of mistake in Final Order under Section 35C (1)(a) of the Central Excise Act 1944.

Analysis:
The applicants filed applications seeking rectification of a mistake in the Final Order dated 14/11/2014, contending that the Tribunal failed to consider the provisions of Section 35C (1)(a) of the Central Excise Act 1944. The Learned Advocate argued that the Adjudication Order was not effectively served on the applicants as per Section 37C of the Act, citing precedents such as Saral Wire Craft Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Custom, Central Excise & Service Tax and R.K. Agarwal Vs. Cestat, New Delhi. The Advocate highlighted the Tribunal's power to rectify mistakes under Section 35B of the Act, referencing the judgment in Jai Kishan Khatri Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur. The contention was that the service of the order was invalid, warranting rectification.

The Revenue's Authorized Representative opposed the application, asserting that one of the applicants signed the appeal within the stipulated period, indicating knowledge of the Adjudication Orders. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal reviewed the relevant portions of the Final Order and noted that the Order-in-Original was served on the company, and the appeal was filed on time. The Tribunal found that the applicants did not dispute the facts, and while the scope of Section 37C was not fully examined in light of cited case laws, rectification was deemed unwarranted.

The Tribunal ultimately rejected the applications, stating that despite the arguments presented, no merit was found in the applicants' claims. The decision was based on the lack of dispute regarding the facts of service and filing of the appeal, leading to the rejection of the rectification applications.

---