2018 (5) TMI 1132 - AT - Service Tax

Rectification of mistake - the final order, which has held against applicant, did not incorporate certain submissions and the determination thereof; these are now sought to be incorporated in the light of this application - Held that - the claim made by the appellant that the show cause notice had not been received by them is not tenable; even if that were acceptable, it is of little relevance to the outcome of the proceedings before the Tribunal - circular no. 31/2004 dated 11th May 2004 pertains to the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 which lays down instructions for valuation of imported goods, is referred to, the extent to which it could advance the case was not brought out either in the grounds of appeal or in the oral submissions for which reason we had rendered our findings of not finding any merit without further elaboration. The decisions cited, which, being disposal of an application for stay and waiver of pre-deposit, is an interim order with neither precedent value nor persuasive value. Accordingly these were not referred to in the order passed by us. The application for rectification of mistakes does not have any bearing on our findings or on the outcome and is, therefore, not liable to be entertained within the scope of section 35C of Central Excise Act, 1944 - application for ROM dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Application for rectification of mistake in the final order

Analysis:
1. Issue of Non-receipt of Show Cause Notice: The applicant claimed that they did not receive the show cause notice, but the records showed otherwise. The Tribunal found that the submission of non-receipt was not factually acceptable as the applicant had responded to the same show cause notice in the past. The Tribunal concluded that even if the notice was not received, it would not impact the outcome of the proceedings.

2. Consideration of Stay Order: The applicant argued that the stay order issued by the Tribunal in three appeals was not considered in the final order. The Tribunal noted that the circular referenced in the stay order was not effectively utilized in the case presentation, leading to the Tribunal's decision of finding no merit without further elaboration. The Tribunal clarified that the stay orders and references to previous decisions did not significantly impact the final outcome.

3. Failure to Refer to Previous Decision: The applicant contended that a previous decision was not referenced or discussed in the final order. The Tribunal explained that the decision in question was an interim order related to stay and waiver of pre-deposit, holding no precedent or persuasive value. As a result, the Tribunal did not find it necessary to include such references in the final order.

4. Conclusion: After considering the arguments presented by the applicant, the Tribunal concluded that the application for rectification of mistakes did not affect the findings or the outcome of the case. Therefore, the application was dismissed under the scope of section 35C of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The judgment was pronounced on 2nd May 2018.