ORDER
U.L. Bhat, J. (President)
1. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin has filed this application seeking rectification of mistake said to have been committed in Final Order No. 178/98-A, dated 6-2-1998. The application was opposed by the respondent. We have heard both sides.
2. The common order-in-original dated 29-9-1994 passed by the Collector of Customs, Cochin demanding customs duty of Rs. 5,52,244.00 and imposing penalty of Rs. 6 lakhs was challenged in Appeal C/21/95-A and subsequently supplementary Appeal No. C/280/97-A was filed along with an application for condonation of delay. Delay has been condoned. Both the appeals have been disposed of by Final Order No. 178/98-A, dated 6-2-1998 1998 (104) E.L.T. 88 (Tribunal)] setting aside the confirmation of demand and reducing the penalty to Rs. 1 lakh. The demand was made on the basis of the two main allegations, one of misdescription of quantity imported and the other of misdeclaration of value. The Collector ascertained the correct quantity of goods imported and enhanced the assessable value from Rs. 51.00 to Rs. 129 per gross. It was on this basis that differential duty was worked out. In the final order, we held that the assessable value shall be based on the price of Rs. 73.00 per gross. This would naturally result in considerable reduction in the quantum of differential duty. Having regard to the entirety of circumstances, we reduced the penalty to Rs. 1 lakh.
3. The penalty imposed by the Collector was to the tune of Rs. 6 lakhs. This is seen referred to in paragraph 1 of the order. However, in the last paragraph we indicated that penalty is being reduced from Rs. 3 lakhs to Rs. 1 lakh. The mention of “3” in the last paragraph was evidently the result of a typographical error. According to the Department, we fixed Rs. 1 lakh under the belief that the Collector had imposed penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs and, therefore, the penalty amount should be increased. We do not agree. We were quite conscious of the quantum of penalty imposed by the Collector, as seen recited in the earlier paragraph. Reference to “3” in the last paragraph was a. typographic mistake. We find no reason to alter the quantum of penalty.
4. However, in the course of the hearing of the ROM, certain other errors in the final order have been brought to our notice. Final Order No. 178/98-A disposed of two appeals, namely, C/21/95-A and C/280/97-A, but the cause title refers only to Appeal C/21/95-A. Similarly, the Registry while giving the order number has mentioned only one number, that is, 178/98-A. According to the practice followed in the Tribunal, two numbers should have been given.
5. We dispose of the ROM directing correction of the Final Order showing that the order disposed of two appeals including Appeal No. C/280/97-A and that the Final Order shall be numbered as 178-178A/98-A.