Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5.10 Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has in case of Polyplex Corporation [] held as follows, while interpreting a amending notification, issued as "corrigendum":

"7. So it clearly says that it is a corrigendum to Notification No. 93/2004-Cus., dated 10-9-2004. It is not an amendment or modification or alteration in the earlier notification so as to make a change therein as such but when the author of a document makes a correction, it relates back to the date of initial authoring for the reason that correction means whatever written was not correct or there was some mistake which need be corrected. A correction or corrigendum precedes an inherent admission on the part of the person making correction/issuing corrigendum that the initial document or initial authored material has some mistake and admitting this mistake the same is being rectified/corrected and hence a correction/corrigendum.
8. Normally the word "corrigendum" is used when correction is made in a printed matter which has already disclosed to public and, therefore, mere handwritten correction or draft or finalized matter would not be 29 ST/174,345,466/2012 sufficient but correction as such has to be notified separately and that is how it is termed corrigendum.
9. The meaning of "corrigendum" is "an error to be corrected especially an error in print". The word "corrigenda" is used in a list of corrections of errors in a book or other publications. The origin of the word "corrigendum" is said to be from Latin from the phrase, "neuter of corrigendus, gerundive of corrigere to correct".

14. In "Legal Dictionary" along with Foreign Words and Maxims including Latin Maxims by Prafulla C. Pant, Second Edition, Reprint 2007, at page 118, the meaning of "corrigendum" is, "a thing to be corrected, esp. an error in a printed book".

15. This Court has also considered the nature of corrigendum in Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow v. Dunlop India Limited, 1994 (92) STC 571 and said :

"In my opinion, Notification No. 4841 is in the nature of a correction (corrigendum) and, therefore, it dates back to the date of the notification corrected thereby, namely, June 11, 1974, on which date Notification No. 3867 was issued. A correction is a correction only when it dates back to the original order or the proceeding as the case may be.

19. In Government of India v. Indian Tobacco Association, 2005 (187) E.L.T. 162 the Supreme Court in para 27 of the judgment observed :

"27. There is another aspect of the matter which may not be lost sight of. Where a statute is passed for the purpose of supplying an obvious omission in a former statute, the subsequent statute relates back to the time when the prior Act was passed [See Attorney General v. Pougette - (1816) 2 Price 381 = 146 ER 130]"

20. It is true that an exemption notification must be given a strict meaning. [See Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand and Others, (2005) 4 SCC 272 and on 31 ST/174,345,466/2012 Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-I v. Mahaan Dairies, (2004) 11 SCC 798 = 2004 (166) E.L.T. 23]. But here it is not the case of application of an exemption notification itself but the effect of corrigendum notification issued in respect of an earlier exemption notification admitting apparent omission therein necessitating the issuance of correction/corrigendum notification. Therefore, principle applied herein would be different."