2017 (11) TMI 1687 - AT - Service Tax

Rectification of mistake - error apparent from face of records - exclusion of certain portion of value on the ground that these are attributable to reimbursible expenditure - Held that - The Tribunal cannot take up exercise on re-appreciating the evidences and to embark on an act of reviewing the decision under the guise of rectification of mistake. An error apparent on the face of the record means an error which strikes on the mere looking and does not need long drawn-out process of reasoning on points where there may be conceivably be two opinions. Such effort should not require anv extraneous matter to show its incorrectness. There is no error apparent from the record calling for rectification - ROM application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of mistake apparent from record in the Final Order dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant under Section 35C(2) of Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding exclusion of reimbursible expenditure.

Analysis:
The appellant filed a miscellaneous application for rectification of a mistake apparent from the record in the Final Order where the Tribunal had dismissed the appeal. The appellant argued that their claim for exclusion of reimbursible expenditure should have been allowed based on binding precedents of various courts and the Tribunal. The appellant also referred to a circular of the Board, although it was deemed irrelevant. The Tribunal had not addressed the various decisions relied upon by the appellant in the final order.

The respondent opposed the application, stating that seeking a review of the Tribunal's order was not permitted by law. They argued that there was no apparent error or mistake in the Final Order that required rectification.

After hearing both sides and examining the appeal record, the Tribunal noted that the main dispute was regarding the appellant's claim for exclusion of a portion of value attributable to reimbursible expenditure. The Tribunal had thoroughly examined this aspect with reference to the contracts and factual findings. The Tribunal found no apparent mistake in denying the claim, as there was no reimbursement expenditure based on the terms of the contract and supporting evidence.

The Tribunal clarified that its decision was not based on a specific circular but on a comprehensive analysis of all facts and evidence presented. Citing judicial pronouncements, the Tribunal emphasized that it could not re-evaluate evidence or review decisions under the guise of rectification. Referring to a Supreme Court judgment, the Tribunal highlighted that an error apparent on the face of the record should be clear without requiring extraneous matters to demonstrate its incorrectness.

Based on these principles, the Tribunal concluded that there was no error apparent from the record warranting rectification. Therefore, the miscellaneous application was dismissed.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues raised, arguments presented by both parties, the Tribunal's reasoning, and the legal principles governing the rectification of mistakes apparent from the record in the context of the appellant's claim for exclusion of reimbursible expenditure.