CENVAT penalty citation error not enough for rectification where provisions were treated as pari materia and mala fides were unproven.

Reference to Section 11AC instead of Rule 13 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 was not treated as an error apparent on record where the adjudication order imposed penalty under Rule 13(2) and Section 11AC, and the operative part also referred to an equal penalty under Rule 13. The Tribunal held the two provisions to be pari materia, so the earlier order was not vitiated by the citation difference alone. It also noted that no mala fides had been established and that the penalty could not survive on merits in any event. The rectification application was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the reference to Section 11AC instead of Rule 13 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 in the earlier order constituted an error apparent on record warranting rectification, and whether the penalty was liable to be sustained.

Analysis: The penalty imposed in the adjudication order was under Rule 13(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 and Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal found that Rule 13(2) and Section 11AC were pari materia and that the operating part of the adjudication order also referred to an equal amount of penalty under Rule 13. The earlier order therefore did not suffer from any apparent error merely because Section 11AC was mentioned. The Tribunal further noted that the earlier reasoning had already held that no mala fides were established and that the penalty could not survive on merits in any event.

Conclusion: No error apparent on record was made out, and the application for rectification of mistake was dismissed.

---