2016 (7) TMI 1033 - AT - Service Tax

Rectification of mistake - Held that - As is evident, the CESTAT order dated 13.8.2015 did set aside the impugned order-in-original No. 172-174/GB/2013 dated 29.11.2013 (as a consequence of which the demand, interest and penalties also got set aside) and passed further order (for de novo adjudication only in relation to service tax demand, interest and penalty relating to foreign exchange ). Thus even the order sheet noting dated 13.8.2015 reproduced earlier is not in disharmony with the CESTAT order dated 13.8.2015. - the appellant has not pointed out any error apparent in the CESTAT order dated 13.8.2015 per se. - ROM applications dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Rectification of mistake applications regarding variance in CESTAT order

Analysis:
1. Rectification of Mistake Applications: The judgment deals with rectification of mistake applications filed to correct a CESTAT Order dated 13.8.2015, which the appellant claimed was at variance with the order pronounced in the open Court. The appellant argued that the appeals were allowed in the open Court, but the written order did not reflect the same.

2. Contentions of Parties: The appellant contended that the CESTAT order needed rectification, while the Departmental Representative (DR) argued that there was no error apparent in the order and no need for rectification. The DR maintained that the order was not inconsistent with the open Court pronouncement.

3. Analysis of Order Sheet: The Tribunal analyzed the order sheet dated 13.8.2015, which indicated that stay petitions were allowed, and appeals were allowed without any specific details. However, the order sheet was not signed by any Member of the Bench, raising questions about its validity. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's prayers in the appeals were largely granted by setting aside the impugned order and remanding the case for de novo adjudication in certain aspects.

4. Consistency of Orders: The Tribunal observed that the CESTAT order did align with the prayers made by the appellant in setting aside the impugned order and related demands, penalties, and interests. The order specifically addressed the demands related to crate rentals and foreign exchange currency, providing clarity on the course of action to be taken.

5. Legal Precedent: The Tribunal referenced a Supreme Court judgment regarding the pronouncement of judgments in open Court and the subsequent corrections that can be made before signing and dating the judgment. However, the Tribunal clarified that they were not relying on this precedent for the decision in this case.

6. Decision: After considering the arguments and reviewing the order and record, the Tribunal concluded that there was no error apparent in the CESTAT order dated 13.8.2015. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the rectification of mistake applications, affirming that there was no need for any correction in the order.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues raised, the arguments presented by both parties, the examination of the order sheet, the consistency of the orders with the appellant's prayers, the legal precedent referenced, and the ultimate decision of the Tribunal to dismiss the rectification of mistake applications.