2016 (6) TMI 834 - AT - Service Tax

Rectification of mistake in the order - The present ROM Application is directed on the second issue that is availability of credit on the service tax paid against Technical Assistance Services. - Held that - Prima facie, we are of the view that the issue is debatable and hence at this stage, this Tribunal cannot enter into such debate once the order was delivered - ROM Application filed by the Revenue dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of mistake apparent on the face of record in the Final Order regarding CENVAT Credit on service tax paid for Goods Transport Agency (GTA) services and Technical Assistance Services received from a foreign service provider.

Analysis:
The Revenue filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking rectification of a mistake in the Final Order regarding the availability of CENVAT Credit on service tax paid for Technical Assistance Services. The Revenue argued that the Tribunal applied a case law incorrectly and did not consider the provisions of Taxation of Services Rules, 2006. The Revenue contended that the credit availed on the service tax paid was inadmissible due to Rule 5 of the said Rules. The Appellant's Advocate argued that the order was dictated in the presence of both parties and the issue of CENVAT Credit eligibility was previously considered by the Tribunal in a similar case. The Advocate emphasized that the Tribunal cannot review its own order at this stage, citing relevant case laws.

The Tribunal examined the submissions of both parties and found that the order was dictated in the presence of representatives from both sides. The Revenue challenged the applicability of the case law used by the Tribunal regarding the availability of CENVAT Credit on Technical Assistance Services. The Revenue argued that the Taxation of Services Rules, 2006 had not been considered in previous judgments. The Appellant's Advocate referenced a Tribunal judgment where CENVAT Credit was deemed eligible under similar circumstances. The Tribunal noted that the issue was debatable and, following the principle established by the Supreme Court, stated that it could not engage in a debate once the order was delivered. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's application, citing that the mistake alleged was not apparent on the face of the record and did not warrant rectification.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's application for rectification of the Final Order, emphasizing that the issue raised was debatable and did not meet the criteria for rectification of a mistake apparent on the face of the record. The Tribunal upheld the principle that rectification should only be done for obvious and patent mistakes, not for matters requiring extensive reasoning or involving debatable points of law.