2018 (8) TMI 1594 - AT - Service Tax

Rectification of mistake - Section 86(7) of the Finance Act, 1994 - applicant has submitted that the Tribunal Order has a mistake apparent in the sense that despite the appellant provided sufficient evidence to prove reasonable grounds which barred him to file the appeal in the time, still the order recites about having no evidence in this respect - Held that - The impugned order was sent to applicant, through registered post, on 5th April, 2011. Otherwise also the evidences as impressed upon by the applicant to have not been considered by the Tribunal in the impugned order also reflect the delay of almost six years. In the given circumstances, the possibility of those letters to have been issued as an intentional strategy to seek condonation cannot be ruled out - there is no apparent error on record as is alleged. Application stands rejected.

Summary

Issues: Application for rectification of mistake under Section 86(7) of the Finance Act, 1994, Chapter-V read with Section 35C (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
1. The applicant filed an application for rectification of mistake under the relevant sections of the Finance Act, 1994, and the Central Excise Act, 1944.

2. The applicant argued that there was a mistake in the Tribunal's order as it wrongly stated that there was no evidence for condonation of delay, despite the appellant providing sufficient evidence. The applicant highlighted that the rejection of the condonation application was in error and should be allowed.

3. The Department, represented by the ld. DR, contended that all grounds raised in the current application were previously considered in the application for condonation of delay. The Department argued that there was no mistake in the order, and the application should be dismissed.

4. The Tribunal observed an admitted delay of almost six years between the challenged order and the filing of the appeal. It noted that no condonation application was filed until directed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal compared the current application with the previous one and found that all grounds were previously considered.

5. The Tribunal stated that the impugned order was sent to the applicant via registered post on 5th April 2011. It emphasized that the date of sending the order should be considered as the date of communication, as per statutory provisions. The Tribunal cited relevant case law to support this interpretation.

6. The Tribunal rejected the applicant's arguments, noting that the delay of almost six years was evident. It highlighted that the Department had produced evidence of dispatch through registered post, which was crucial in this case. The Tribunal distinguished a previous case relied upon by the applicant where there was no evidence of service by registered post.

7. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the application for rectification of mistake, concluding that there was no apparent error in the original order. The case law cited by the applicant was deemed not applicable to the present situation due to the presence of evidence regarding the dispatch of the impugned order.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the application for rectification of mistake under the relevant legal provisions, presenting a comprehensive overview of the arguments and the Tribunal's decision based on the evidence and statutory interpretations provided during the proceedings.