2016 (12) TMI 1231 - AT - Service Tax

Rectification of mistake - authorizing Chartered Accountant to appear before Tribunal without revoking earlier incumbent - Held that - the Ld. Counsel wants to argue the entire case by taking through the entire case records, as also assailing the orders of Adjudicating Authority and First Appellate Authority to put forth his point that there is an error apparent on face of the record - this would be reviewing own order, an action impermissible under the statute. It is settled law that in the guise of application for rectification of mistake, entire appeal cannot be re-argued, vide this application, applicant wants to do the same, which is declined - application for ROM dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of mistake in final order regarding non-appearance of authorized representative, payment of tax and interest, consideration of case records, and authorization of power of attorney.

Analysis:
The application sought rectification of mistakes in the final order dated 31-12-2015. The appellant claimed errors due to the change in the authorized representative, non-receipt of hearing notice, payment of tax and interest not properly considered, and lack of findings on timely payment of service tax and interest. The appellant argued that the new power of attorney holder's non-appearance affected the representation of facts before the Tribunal.

Upon reviewing the submissions and records, the Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's arguments. The bench highlighted that the order was passed after hearing both sides in open court. It was noted that the counsel who presented the case was on record during the proceedings. The Tribunal emphasized that the power of attorney filed did not have a No Objection from the earlier counsel, indicating a lack of proper authorization. The Tribunal stated that re-arguing the entire case through rectification of mistake was impermissible under the law.

The Tribunal declined the application for rectification, stating that the appellant's request essentially aimed at re-arguing the appeal, which was not permissible. The bench affirmed that all aspects of the case were considered before the final order was issued. Consequently, the application for rectification was dismissed, with the Tribunal finding no grounds for rectification of mistake.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision emphasized the importance of proper authorization and adherence to legal procedures. The judgment highlighted that rectification of mistake cannot be used as a means to re-argue the entire case. The Tribunal's thorough analysis and dismissal of the application underscored the need for adherence to legal principles and the finality of judicial decisions.