Tribunal allows typographical correction in final order, emphasizes limited rectification scope

The tribunal allowed the typographical correction in para-8 of the final order but rejected other requests for rectification. The judgment emphasized that rectification is limited to self-evident mistakes, not requiring further deliberation. The tribunal cited legal precedents to support its decision and highlighted its duty to correct mistakes where issues have been argued but not considered in the order. The application for rectification was partly allowed on 15.01.2020.

---

---

Issues:
Rectification of mistake in final order regarding demand on "shifting of overhead cables/wires" and other points argued by the appellant.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with an application seeking rectification of a mistake in the final order related to the demand on "shifting of overhead cables/wires" and other points raised by the appellant. The applicant argued that certain points were not considered in the final order, leading to errors that needed rectification. The tribunal examined the typographical error in para-8 of the final order, where the demand on non-taxable activity was wrongly confirmed. The tribunal concluded that the word "upheld" in the order was a typographical error and should be read as "the order to that extent is hereby set aside."

The tribunal discussed the scope of rectification, citing legal precedents such as the case of Honda SIEL Power Products Ltd. Vs. CIT and Commissioner of Central Excise Mumbai Vs. NTB International Pvt. Ltd. The tribunal emphasized that rectification is permissible only for self-evident and palpable mistakes that do not require further deliberation. The judgment highlighted that the tribunal is duty-bound to correct mistakes where an issue has been argued but not considered in the order, as it constitutes a mistake apparent on record.

Regarding the appellant's plea about the composition scheme and calculation errors, the tribunal found that the composition scheme issue had been adequately addressed in the final order. The tribunal noted that the calculation error and the plea for cum-tax benefit were not self-evident mistakes and were beyond the scope of rectification. Consequently, the tribunal rejected the remaining grievances of the applicant as being outside the purview of rectification.

In conclusion, the tribunal allowed the typographical correction in para-8 of the final order but declined the other requests for rectification. The judgment was pronounced in open court on 15.01.2020, thereby partly allowing the application for rectification while rejecting the remaining requests.

---