Commissioner Of Central Excise And Customs, Aurangabad (Now Commissioner Of Central GST vs. M/S Shree Om Rolling Mills LTD, Jalna
Held
The Court held that the appeal number in the order dated 11.10.2019 was indeed incorrectly recorded. The Court accepted the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appeal number should have been 'Central Excise Appeal No. 11 of 2018' instead of 'Central Excise Appeal No. 11 of 2019'. The reasoning was based on the appellant's counsel pointing out the discrepancy with the appeal memo. The operative direction was to correct the title cause in the order dated 11.10.2019 to reflect the accurate appeal number as per the appeal memo. No other issues were decided, and no specific legal principles were established beyond the correction of a clerical error in a court order.
Facts
This matter concerns a motion for speaking to the minutes of an order dated October 11, 2019, issued by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad. The appellant, the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Aurangabad (now Commissioner of Central GST), brought to the court's attention an error in the appeal number cited in the previous order. The order incorrectly stated the appeal number as 'Central Excise Appeal No. 11 of 2019', whereas it should have been 'Central Excise Appeal No. 11 of 2018'. The respondent is M/s Shree Om Rolling Mills Ltd., Jalna. The motion was made by the learned counsel for the appellant.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appeal number in the order dated 11.10.2019 was correctly recorded. This issue arises from the appellant's submission that the appeal number was incorrectly stated as 'Central Excise Appeal No. 11 of 2019' when it should have been 'Central Excise Appeal No. 11 of 2018'. Arguments: Petitioner/Appellant: The appellant's counsel argued that the appeal number in the order dated 11.10.2019 contained a typographical error, specifically in the year of the appeal number, and that it ought to be corrected to 'Central Excise Appeal No. 11 of 2018' as per the appeal memo. Revenue/State: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the revenue/state regarding this issue; it appears to be a straightforward correction of a clerical error.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER :
. Motion is made for speaking to minutes in respect of order dated 11.10.2019. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that, in the order dated 11.10.2019 in the title cause appeal number is referred as ‘Central Excise Appeal No. 11 of 2019’. Same ought to be “Central Excise Appeal No. 11 of 2018”.
In view of the above, in the order dated 11.10.2019 in the title cause the appeal number be corrected as per the appeal memo. [ANIL S. KILOR, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] bsb/Nov. 19
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Bombay High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.