2016 (1) TMI 1056 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of mistake - Eligibility for Cenvat Credit on insurance services and taxi services provided for staff and employees and also services of repair and maintenance of vehicle - Held that - There was no dispute whether the services were availed for staff and employees. Needless to say that no evidence has to be adduced for facts which are not in dispute. It apparently appears that the Tribunal has erred in recording a finding of fact. Rule 2 (l) does not say that the services availed in order to be eligible for credit should be services under statutory obligation. In this regard cannot agree with the submissions of the learned DR that the appellant in effect is seeking review of the Final Order and that there is no error apparent on the face of record. The error pointed out by the appellant, strikes on mere looking of the records and the Final Order. It does not require any long drawn process of arguments. Whether the mistake is apparent or not depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The error pointed out by the appellants is manifest on the face of records and for the same, the decision relied by the DR is not applicable to the facts herein. The Tribunal being the ultimate fact finding forum, a patent error on finding of fact which has formed the basis of the decision in the appeal does call for rectification. It is also pointed out that the issue of limitation though raised was not considered at all.The ROM application is allowed accordingly.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Eligibility for Cenvat Credit on insurance services, taxi services, and vehicle repair and maintenance.
- Error apparent on the face of records in the Final Order.
- Consideration of evidence for services provided to staff/employees under statutory obligation.
- Failure to address the plea and submissions raised on the ground of limitation.

Analysis:

Eligibility for Cenvat Credit:
The appellant filed an application seeking rectification of mistake in the Final Order regarding the eligibility for Cenvat Credit on insurance services, taxi services, and vehicle repair and maintenance. The Tribunal had earlier dismissed the appeal, stating that there was no evidence to show these services were provided to workers under any statutory obligation. However, the appellant argued that the Tribunal erred in not considering undisputed facts from the case records. The Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal highlighted that these services were not related to the manufacture of goods but were considered as employee welfare policies. The Show Cause Notice also pointed out that the services availed were not admissible as input services under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Error Apparent on the Face of Records:
The appellant contended that there was an error apparent on the face of records in the Final Order. The Tribunal had dismissed the claim for Cenvat credit based on the absence of evidence regarding services provided to workers under statutory obligation. However, the records clearly indicated that there was no dispute about whether the services were availed for staff and employees. The Tribunal's finding of fact regarding the absence of evidence was challenged by the appellant, emphasizing that no evidence needed to be adduced for undisputed facts. The Tribunal was considered the ultimate fact-finding forum, and the error pointed out by the appellant was deemed manifest on the face of records.

Consideration of Evidence and Limitation:
The issue of whether the services were provided under statutory obligation was a key point of contention. The Tribunal's decision was based on the lack of evidence in this regard. However, the appellant argued that the Tribunal failed to consider the plea and submissions raised on the ground of limitation. The Tribunal was criticized for not providing an independent finding on this issue. The appellant's position was that Rule 2(l) did not mandate services to be under statutory obligation for eligibility for credit, and the Tribunal's failure to address this aspect was a crucial error in the Final Order.

In conclusion, the Tribunal recalled the Final Order and restored the appeal to its original number, directing the registry to list the appeal for final hearing. The appellant's application for rectification was allowed, emphasizing the manifest error on the face of records and the necessity to address the issues raised regarding eligibility for Cenvat Credit and the consideration of evidence and limitation.