2001 (8) TMI 689 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Rectification of mistakes in the Tribunal's Final Order
2. Consideration of relevant documents for service tax adjustments
3. Discrepancies in premium collections and service tax payments
4. Jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal for passing orders
5. Request for re-examination of the case through a ROM application

Issue 1: Rectification of mistakes in the Tribunal's Final Order
The M/s. State Insurance Provident Fund Department filed an application seeking rectification of mistakes in the Tribunal's Final Order. The department argued that the order confirming the demand and applying the extended period of limitation was unjustified. They contended that essential documentary evidence for service tax and adjustments of tax were available but not considered. The department also disputed the application of the extended period based on alleged suppression and misstatements of facts, highlighting discrepancies in premium declarations.

Issue 2: Consideration of relevant documents for service tax adjustments
The department emphasized that all requisite documents were available on record to prove services rendered before July 1994, and payments received later. They argued that the adjustments of tax from one head to another were supported by necessary documents, including ST-3 returns and Challan Nos. 9 & 10. The department asserted that the order's findings contradicted statutory provisions and failed to consider their submissions adequately.

Issue 3: Discrepancies in premium collections and service tax payments
The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the premium collections and service tax payments by the department. The department collected a higher premium amount than declared for service tax, excluding premiums from Group Personal Accident (GPA) insurance. The Tribunal upheld the order-in-original, stating that the premium collections were accurately assessed for the period in question, including the exclusion of GPA premiums from service tax calculations.

Issue 4: Jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal for passing orders
The Tribunal addressed the jurisdictional challenge raised by the department, arguing that the appeal under Section 73 of the Finance Act lies with the Commissioner (Appeals) and not the Appellate Tribunal under Section 85. The Tribunal clarified that this argument was not raised during the appeal hearing, and therefore, no jurisdictional error existed in the Tribunal's final order.

Issue 5: Request for re-examination of the case through a ROM application
The Tribunal rejected the Review of Order Made (ROM) application, stating that it amounted to a request for a review of the entire case, which the Tribunal was not authorized to conduct. The Tribunal emphasized that it could only rectify mistakes apparent on the face of the record, and since no such mistakes were identified, the ROM application was dismissed.