2018 (8) TMI 1593 - AT - Service Tax

Rectification of Mistake - error apparent on the face of record or not - review of order not allowed in the garb of rectification - Held that - There is no error in the face of the record in the Final Order except a typographical error that in para 5 in place of earlier period it should be for subsequent period - correction of this error will not make any difference as far as outcome of the decision on merit is concerned. In the garb of this application, the Revenue wants to review the whole case on merit which is not permissible under law. ROM application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of mistake in the Final Order regarding classification of services under 'Port Services' or 'Cargo Handling Service' for the period 16.08.2002 to 2003-04.

Analysis:
The Revenue filed a miscellaneous application seeking rectification of mistake in the Final Order passed in Appeal No. ST/206/2006, where the demand of service tax was confirmed under 'Cargo Handling Service' instead of 'Port Service'. The Order-in-Original had confirmed a demand of only &8377; 22,28,712/- as opposed to the initial demand of &8377; 1,70,30,280/-. The decision was based on the absence of authorization from the port authorities for the services rendered. However, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by treating the services as 'port services' based on the Aspinwall & Co. Ltd. case precedent.

The Tribunal had previously decided in the Aspinwall & Co. Ltd. case that services rendered within the port premises would fall under 'Port Services' without the precondition of authorization from the port authority. The Revenue contended that the Final Order contained an error as the services were correctly classified under 'Port Services' as per the Order-in-Original. The appellant argued that the Final Order was correct, except for a typographical error regarding the period in question, which did not affect the merit of the decision. The appellant further argued that the Revenue's application sought a review of the entire case on merit, which was beyond the scope of a rectification of mistake application.

After hearing both parties and examining the records, the Tribunal found that the only error in the Final Order was a typographical one regarding the period mentioned in a specific paragraph. Correcting this error would not impact the decision's merit. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue's application aimed to review the case on its merits, which was not permissible under the law for a rectification application. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's application for rectification of mistake.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld its Final Order treating the services as 'port services' and dismissed the Revenue's application for rectification of mistake, stating that the error identified did not affect the decision's outcome on merit.