2015 (2) TMI 432 - AT - Service Tax

Rectification of mistake - Delay in filing ST-3 returns - Held that - It is seen that neither in the show cause notice nor in the impugned order the fact of filing of the return by the appellant on 28/03/2007 has been recorded anywhere. Therefore, we requested the Ld. A.R appearing for the Revenue to show us in which part of the order appealed against, this fact has been recorded or in which part of the show cause notice this fact is recorded. The ld. A.R fairly conceded that the fact of the ST-3 return having been filed on 28/03/2007 is neither mentioned in the order nor in the show cause notice. If that be so, Revenue cannot allege that this Tribunal has committed an error. Thus, this ground mentioned in the application of the rectification of the mistake is a new ground, which cannot be considered at this stage. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the ROM application filed by the Revenue - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Rectification of mistake in the Tribunal's order regarding the time bar for Service Tax demand for the period of April 2005 to September 2005.

Analysis:
1. The Revenue filed an application for rectification of mistake, claiming an error in the Tribunal's order stating that the demand for Service Tax for the period of April 2005 to September 2005 fell outside the extended period of 5 years. The Revenue argued that the show cause notice issued on 15/11/2010 covered the period within the time limit as the appellant had filed ST-3 returns on 28/03/2007. The Revenue contended that the mistake in the Tribunal's order needed rectification based on the date of filing the returns.

2. Upon scrutiny of the impugned order, the Tribunal observed that neither the show cause notice nor the order mentioned the filing date of the returns by the appellant on 28/03/2007. The Tribunal requested the Revenue's representative to point out where this fact was recorded in the order or the notice. The Revenue's representative acknowledged that the filing date was not documented in either the order or the notice. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the new ground raised by the Revenue for rectification could not be considered at that stage. The Tribunal held that since the filing date was not part of the record, the allegation of error by the Revenue was unfounded. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's application for rectification of mistake.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues involved, the arguments presented by the Revenue, and the Tribunal's reasoning for dismissing the rectification application, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal decision.