https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355221 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. en-us Thu, 11 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Feb 2018 07:18:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355221 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 11 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355221