2017 (9) TMI 621 - AT - Service Tax

Rectification of Mistake - Jurisdiction of Tribunal - power of review - Held that - the Tribunal being statutory body and not being vested with the power of review, it has no power to recall its order to substitute that by a new order. It has limited jurisdiction to rectify a mistake apparent from record, without making an extensive examination thereof. Accordingly, Tribunal having limited jurisdiction, the application for ROM is liable to be dismissed - ROM application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rectification of mistake in the order related to CENVAT credit eligibility.
2. Modification of order regarding time-barred demand.
3. Rectification of factual error on short payment of service tax liability.
4. Eligibility of CENVAT credit on dumpers and tippers.
5. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to recall its order.

Issue 1: Rectification of mistake in CENVAT credit eligibility
The appellant contended that there was a mistake in the order regarding the eligibility of CENVAT credit for duty paid on inputs and service tax paid on input services. The Tribunal had held the credit ineligible, stating it was negligible. The appellant argued that the original invoices were available for verification, and the denial of credit was based on the non-production of invoices. The Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to re-examine the issue of CENVAT credit eligibility for dumpers and tippers.

Issue 2: Modification of order regarding time-barred demand
The appellant sought modification of the order concerning a time-barred demand. The appellant had submitted a date chart and detailed arguments during the hearing, but the Tribunal held that due to a retrospective law amendment, there was a liability and penalty. The appellant requested setting aside the demand beyond the normal limitation period.

Issue 3: Rectification of factual error on short payment of service tax liability
The appellant pointed out a factual error in the order regarding the short payment of service tax liability. The Tribunal had stated that there was no dispute about the short payment, but the appellant argued that they had submitted a reconciliation statement to prove otherwise. The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the adjudicating authority for correct calculation of the short payment.

Issue 4: Eligibility of CENVAT credit on dumpers and tippers
The appellant raised concerns about the eligibility of CENVAT credit on dumpers and tippers, arguing that they should be considered capital goods for credit purposes. The Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to re-examine the eligibility of CENVAT credit based on the classification of these goods.

Issue 5: Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to recall its order
The Tribunal clarified that it had limited jurisdiction to rectify mistakes in the order without extensive examination. It stated that as a statutory body, it could not recall its order to substitute it with a new one. The Tribunal dismissed the application for rectification of mistake, emphasizing that the appellant did not require a fresh order through an extensive hearing.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment, addressing the appellant's arguments, the Tribunal's decisions, and the legal principles applied in each issue.