2017 (5) TMI 1344 - AT - Service Tax

Rectification of mistake - Held that - the contentions in the said Para 5 of ROM Application are totally wrong when compared with the record as reflected in above stated Para 13 of appeal memorandum, so far as they related to allegations made against the counsel & facts on record. I, therefore, hold that there was no apparent mistake of facts on the face of record - application for ROM dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Rectification of mistake in Final Order No. A/70760-70761/2016-SM(BR) dated 31/08/2016 regarding the date of realization of export proceeds in refund claims.

Analysis:
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD heard the Revenue's ROM Application requesting to rectify a mistake in Final Order No. A/70760-70761/2016-SM(BR) dated 31/08/2016. The mistake pertained to the date of realization of export proceeds in refund claims filed by M/s Contata Solutions Pvt. Ltd. The ld. Counsel for the company pointed out discrepancies in the ROM Application regarding the dates of realization of export proceeds. The Tribunal noted that the ROM Application was filed in one appeal only and any references to other appeals were to be disregarded. The Final Order had previously mentioned the dates of receipt of foreign exchange in line with the appeal memorandum. The Tribunal reviewed the facts and found that the contentions in the ROM Application were incorrect when compared to the appeal memorandum. It was concluded that there was no apparent mistake of facts on record, and the Final Order aligned with the information in the appeal memorandum. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application for rectification of mistake.

This judgment clarifies the importance of aligning facts presented in applications with the records on appeal. It emphasizes the need for accuracy and consistency in submissions before the Tribunal. The decision highlights the Tribunal's role in ensuring the integrity of the legal process and discouraging baseless allegations against counsel. The judgment reaffirms the principle that rectification of mistakes should be based on genuine discrepancies in the record, rather than unsubstantiated claims.