2014 (4) TMI 375 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of mistake - Incomplete order - Held that - Tribunal had examined the merits in respect of the two services and passed the order. But no such finding is recorded in the order and therefore the order is not complete and nothing can be presumed in the order. Therefore, I am of the view that there is a mistake apparent on record and the matter has to be heard on merits on each of the services and disposed of. Therefore, this ROM application of Revenue is allowed by recalling the final order and restoring the appeal to its original number - Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Rectification of mistake in Final Order regarding input service credit eligibility and amount involved.

Analysis:
1. Rectification of Mistake in Final Order: The Appellate Tribunal considered an application filed by the Revenue seeking rectification of a perceived mistake in the Final Order issued by the Tribunal in response to an appeal filed by the Revenue. The Tribunal's original order had rejected the appeal based on the proviso to Section 35B(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as the amount involved was below Rs.50,000. The Revenue contended that the Tribunal had overlooked their first prayer regarding the eligibility of credit on certain services amounting to Rs.5,35,952. The Tribunal acknowledged that while it may have examined the merits of the services in question, the order did not reflect any findings on record, leading to an incomplete order. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the Revenue's application, recalling the final order and restoring the appeal for a fresh hearing on the merits of each service involved.

2. Dispute Over Input Service Credit: The Revenue's appeal was against an order dropping a demand of Rs.5,56,797 related to input credit taken on various services. The grounds of appeal included contesting findings by the Commissioner (Appeals) on two services and seeking examination by the Tribunal. The remaining three services had a credit of Rs.20,845 involved. The Revenue argued that the Tribunal had not addressed their first prayer regarding the eligibility of credit on the two services, leading to a perceived mistake in the order. In response, the counsel for the respondent contended that the Tribunal had determined the eligibility for credit on the disputed services, resulting in a real dispute over Rs.20,845 only. However, the Tribunal found that the absence of explicit findings in the order necessitated a fresh hearing on the merits of each service to ensure completeness and proper disposal of the appeal.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the Revenue's application for rectification of the mistake in the Final Order, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive hearing on the eligibility of input service credit for the disputed services. The decision highlighted the importance of clarity and completeness in judicial orders to address all aspects of a case effectively.