https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282031 CESTAT rectified an apparent mistake in its final order by substituting paragraph 29 only, without disturbing any other part of the decision. The revised paragraph records that Amit Gupta was made a party to the proceedings and that a penalty under Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was imposed on him as the kingpin. The review/ROM application was therefore allowed solely to correct the record and align the order with the stated liability, with no reconsideration of the underlying adjudication. en-us Mon, 21 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 23 Nov 2022 12:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282031 CESTAT rectified an apparent mistake in its final order by substituting paragraph 29 only, without disturbing any other part of the decision. The revised paragraph records that Amit Gupta was made a party to the proceedings and that a penalty under Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was imposed on him as the kingpin. The review/ROM application was therefore allowed solely to correct the record and align the order with the stated liability, with no reconsideration of the underlying adjudication. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 21 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282031