9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 1462 - AT - Service TaxRectification of Mistake - the first para indicates that both the appeals are in respect of the same appellant is incorrect as the appeals are filed by Deloitte Support Services India Pvt Ltd and Deloitte Tax Services India Pvt Ltd. - Held that - It is an error apparent on the face of the record in Final Order dated 16.11.2017, in which the Tribunal disposed of two appeals and both the appeals are of different assesses - ROM application allowed. ROM - the para 9 has been mis-interpreted by the authorities. In the said para, Bench is not stating that matter is remanded back for classification purposes, but only stated the fact that the classification of the services is not in dispute - Held that - It is qualified by the next sentence wherein, Bench has clearly recorded that output services are exported is not being disputed, the question on eligibility of the refund does not arise - there is no error on the face of the records on this point - ROM application dismissed. ROM applications disposed off.
Issues: Rectification of mistakes in the Final Order dated 16.11.2017
In the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT HYDERABAD, the issues revolved around rectifying mistakes in the Final Order dated 16.11.2017. The first issue addressed was the error in the narration of the Final Order, where it was clarified that the appeals were filed by different assesses, Deloitte Support Services India Pvt Ltd and Deloitte Tax Services India Pvt Ltd, not by the same appellant. The Tribunal acknowledged the error and allowed the rectification application to correct the cause title accordingly. The second issue involved the interpretation of para 9 of the Final Order, where the Revenue sought rectification based on a misinterpretation regarding the remand for classification purposes. The Tribunal clarified that the classification of services was not in dispute and dismissed the application for rectification in this regard. The judgment concluded with the rectification of the Final Order based on the modifications indicated in the analysis. The first issue addressed in the judgment pertained to rectifying the error in the narration of the Final Order dated 16.11.2017. The Tribunal noted that the initial para incorrectly indicated that both appeals were from the same appellant, whereas they were actually filed by Deloitte Support Services India Pvt Ltd and Deloitte Tax Services India Pvt Ltd, different assesses. Upon reviewing the records, the Tribunal found this to be an apparent mistake and allowed the rectification application. The cause title in the Final Order was amended to reflect the correct appellants, and the first para was modified to accurately represent the appeals' nature. The second issue focused on the interpretation of para 9 of the Final Order, where the Revenue sought rectification based on a misunderstanding regarding the remand for classification purposes. The Tribunal clarified that the statement in para 9 did not imply a remand for classification but rather highlighted that the classification of services was not contested. The Tribunal emphasized that the eligibility of the refund was not in question since the output services being exported were not disputed. Consequently, the application for rectification concerning this aspect was dismissed, as there was no error evident in the records. The Tribunal specified the necessary modification to para 9 of the Final Order to accurately reflect the clarification provided. In conclusion, the judgment resolved the issues by rectifying the mistakes in the Final Order dated 16.11.2017. The Tribunal allowed the rectification application concerning the error in the narration of the Final Order, acknowledging the appeals were from different assesses. Additionally, the Tribunal dismissed the rectification application related to the misinterpretation of para 9, clarifying that there was no error regarding the remand for classification purposes. The Final Order was rectified based on the modifications specified in the analysis, concluding the disposition of the rectification of mistakes in the judgment.
|
