Judgment
1. This application for rectification of mistake is filed by M/s.Stericat Gutstrings P. Ltd. In the application, it is mentioned that after hearing the arguments, the order was dictated in the open Court and the redemption fine was reduced to Rs. 1 lac. The learned Counsel for the appellants on 27-12-2004, i.e. the date of the decision, informed the appellants that the redemption fine has been reduced to Rs. 1 lac. However, when the applicant received the certified copy of the Final Order No. 15/05-NB(SM), dated 27-12-2004, it was found that in Para 3, the amount of redemption fine was written as Rs. 2 lacs instead of Rs. 1 lac. It was requested that it appears to be a typographical error, which may be rectified. The appellants have also filed an affidavit, in this regard.
2. Shri Bipin Garg, learned Counsel for the appellants pleaded that typographical mistake is apparent on the face of the record and this can be rectified under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
He relied on Tribunal's decision in case of Illavia Enterprises v. CCE, Jaipur [1997 (90) E.L.T. 138 (Tribunal)] where it was held that both the sides agree that the mistake is apparent on the face of the record.
This is a typographical error, hence rectifiable.
3. Shri Bipin Verma, learned JDR, after examining his file, found that in his file the reduced fine is mentioned as Rs. 1 lac only and it is recorded in his own handwriting.
4. Mrs. S. Rajeshwari, Senior Private Secretary, who has taken the dictation on the date of the decision in the open Court, was called in the Court along with her dictation notebook. She stated that she is not able to trace out her dictation note book, as due to renovation of the office, the records have been mixed up. However, she remembers that there had been a doubt in her mind regarding the amount of redemption fine whether it was Rs. 2 lac or Rs. 1 lac as there was cutting and so she typed it as Rs. 2 lac. She was having this doubt as there was cutting in the amount recorded in the notebook.
5. I have considered the submissions. I find that the Senior Private Secretary, who has taken the dictation in the open Court, confirms that due to cutting in the amount, she was not very sure whether it was Rs. 2 lac or Rs. 1 lac so she has typed the amount as Rs. 2 lac. The learned JDR has recorded by his own handwriting the amount of redemption fine reduced to Rs. 1 lac in his case records. It cannot be ignored as he is also an officer of the Court. The learned Advocate for the appellants is also an officer of the Court and is required to assist the Court in coming to correct conclusion. Both of them have confirmed that the amount of redemption fine dictated in the open Court was only Rs. 1 lac.
6. Since both the parties to appeal confirm that the amount was reduced to Rs. 1 lac, therefore, there is a typographical mistake in the order which is apparent from the records, and accordingly, the amount mentioned in Para 3 of the Final Order No. 15/05-NB(SM), dated 27-12-2004 is corrected as under :- "Therefore, I am inclined to reduce the redemption fine to Rs. 2 lakhs" please read "Therefore, I am inclined to reduce the redemption fine to Rs. 1 lac."