2013 (3) TMI 134 - AT - Service Tax

Rectification of mistake - wrong order got issued - held that - At the stage of dictating order on 5-6-2012, no objection regarding the facts or the arguments dictated was raised by either side. Therefore, our inference is that order was dictated correctly. Though the transcription which got signed relate to a different matter. Therefore, it is very obviously a mistake apparent on record and needs correction at any rate and therefore, we decided to dictate the appropriate order afresh. The order dictated separately would be held as the correct order passed in the appeal of M/s. Paramount Communication Wire and Cables Ltd. 2013 (3) TMI 38 - CESTAT NEW DELHI . - Earlier order is withdrawn & ROM is allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Consideration of ROM application filed by revenue for rectifying the Final Order passed by the Tribunal.
2. Discrepancy in the Final Order and Stay Order related to the denial of Cenvat credit and Service Tax on certain services.
3. Dispute regarding non-payment of Service Tax on shared office staff services.
4. Whether the rectification of the mistake in the Final Order is permissible.

Analysis:
1. The Appellate Tribunal considered a ROM application filed by the revenue to rectify the Final Order passed by the Tribunal. The grounds for filing the application included discrepancies in the Final Order related to the denial of Cenvat credit and Service Tax on specific services. The Commissioner sought rectification based on the mistaken application of legal principles from previous decisions. The Revenue argued against the application, stating that a reconsideration of the entire matter cannot be allowed in a ROM application. However, the Tribunal found a mistake apparent on record, where dictation from another case was copied into the Final Order, leading to the issuance of an incorrect order.

2. The Tribunal acknowledged the Revenue's reliance on Supreme Court decisions regarding rectification of mistakes only where errors are apparent. Despite this, the Tribunal identified the mistake in the Final Order as a clerical error, as it did not align with the facts of the present case. The Tribunal emphasized that the rectification provisions aim to correct mistakes pointed out by either party or the Tribunal itself. The Tribunal concluded that the entire Final Order was a mistake requiring rectification, rejecting the argument that rectification is limited to minor clerical errors.

3. The Tribunal noted that during the dictation of the order, no objections were raised regarding the facts or arguments dictated. However, the signed transcription related to a different matter, indicating a clear mistake on record. The Tribunal emphasized the need for correction and decided to dictate a new order to rectify the error in the Final Order. The Tribunal also mentioned that the Revenue did not make any submissions on merits to avoid contradicting their stance on re-appreciation of case merits during a Rectification of Mistake application.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal withdrew the earlier incorrect order and allowed the ROM application, dictating a new order that aligned with the facts of the case regarding the dispute over non-payment of Service Tax on shared office staff services. The Tribunal clarified that rectification was necessary in this instance to ensure the correctness of the order passed in the appeal, emphasizing the importance of addressing mistakes apparent on record to maintain the integrity of the judicial process.