Rectification granted for duty demands & statement admissibility in Final Order.

The Tribunal rectified errors in the Final Order concerning duty demands for clearances to two entities and the admissibility of a statement without cross-examination. The appellant's request for rectification regarding the duty demand for one entity was granted, and the Final Order was modified to exclude mention of the other entity. Additionally, the department's application regarding the admissibility of a statement without cross-examination was accepted, leading to a correction in the Final Order to reflect the statement's inadmissibility. Both rectification of mistake applications were allowed, resulting in modifications to address the identified errors.

---

---

Issues:
Rectification of mistake in the Final Order regarding duty demand for clearances made to M/s. NHS and M/s. Anand, and the admissibility of a statement without cross-examination.

Analysis:

1. Rectification of Mistake in Duty Demand:
The appellant sought rectification of a mistake in the Final Order passed by the Tribunal regarding the duty demand for clearances made to M/s. NHS and M/s. Anand. The appellant's counsel argued that the Tribunal incorrectly confirmed the duty demand for clearances made to M/s. Anand while also mentioning M/s. NHS in the same context, despite setting aside the demand for clearances to M/s. NHS. The Tribunal acknowledged this error as apparent on the face of the record and modified the final order to rectify the mistake by excluding any mention of M/s. NHS in the confirmation of duty demand for M/s. Anand.

2. Admissibility of Statement without Cross-Examination:
The department filed a Rectification of Mistake (ROM) application regarding the admissibility of a statement made by Shri Natarajan without cross-examination. The department's representative argued that the Tribunal wrongly observed that cross-examination was not allowed, whereas the appellant had not even requested cross-examination. The Tribunal recognized this mistake as well and referred to Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which mandates the examination of a person for their statement to be admissible as evidence. The Tribunal corrected the final order by modifying the statement to reflect that the allegations made in the proceedings would not be sustainable due to the lack of examination of Shri Natarajan as required by Section 9D.

In conclusion, the Tribunal addressed and rectified the errors in the Final Order related to duty demand for clearances made to M/s. NHS and M/s. Anand, as well as the admissibility of a statement without cross-examination. Both the appellant's and the department's ROM applications were allowed, and the Final Order was modified accordingly to rectify the identified mistakes.

---