2016 (3) TMI 1185 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of mistake - this Tribunal vide paragraph 2 has recorded that Revenue is not in appeal relating to Cenvat Credit on rent-a-cab service but they are contesting availment of credit on house keeping service and business auxiliary service. On perusal of the grounds of appeal vis- -vis the order dated 22.12.2014 of this Tribunal, I find that the Revenue has filed the appeal in respect of rent a cab service also - the judgment relied on by the respondent during the course of hearing which were recorded in paragraph 4 of the impugned order has not been considered by this Tribunal while disposing of the appeal. Held that - there is apparent error in the order passed by this Tribunal on the face of the record. Therefore, the Misc. Application filed by the respondent is allowed and the order is recalled for consideration of the eligibility dispute with regard to the rent-a-cab service and business auxiliary service - ROM application allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Rectification of mistake in final order regarding eligibility of cenvat credit on rent-a-cab service, housekeeping service, and business auxiliary service.

Analysis:
The respondent filed a Misc. Application under Section 35 C (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, seeking rectification of a mistake in the final order passed by the Tribunal. The respondent contended that the Revenue had appealed against the order contesting the eligibility of cenvat credit on certain services. However, the Tribunal's final order mentioned that the Revenue was not contesting the availment of cenvat credit for rent-a-cab service. The respondent also argued that the Tribunal, for the first time, noted the Revenue's submission that certain services received did not conform to the business auxiliary service. Furthermore, the respondent claimed that the Tribunal did not consider the judgments presented during the hearing while passing the order.

Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal noted that the Revenue had raised specific grounds in its appeal regarding the services in question not being used directly or indirectly in the manufacturing process of the final products. The Tribunal observed discrepancies between the grounds of appeal and the final order, indicating that the Revenue had indeed challenged the availment of credit on rent-a-cab service. Additionally, the Tribunal acknowledged the Revenue's challenge regarding the lack of nexus between certain services and the manufacturing process. The Tribunal also recognized that the judgments cited by the respondent were not taken into account during the disposal of the appeal.

Consequently, the Tribunal found an apparent error in its previous order and allowed the respondent's Misc. Application, recalling the order for reconsideration of the eligibility dispute concerning the rent-a-cab service and business auxiliary service. The Registry was directed to list the appeal for final hearing, emphasizing the need to address the issues raised regarding the cenvat credit on the specified services.