2018 (11) TMI 621 - AT - Service Tax

Rectification of mistake - case of appellant is that this Tribunal while deciding their appeals has erred in not allowing the benefit of cum-duty - Held that - There is no apparent mistake on the record of the matter - The matter which is being contested by the appellant by filing miscellaneous applications will only amount to review of the original order of this Tribunal without any valid grounds - ROM application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of mistake in the Tribunal's final order regarding cum-duty benefit.

Analysis:
The appellant appealed for rectification of mistake in the Tribunal's final order where their appeal was dismissed. The appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in not allowing the benefit of cum-duty while upholding the service tax demand, despite raising the cum-duty benefit ground during the hearing. Upon examination, it was found that the cum-duty benefit was not contested by the appellant during the original appeal or before the Adjudicating Authority. The Tribunal noted that there was no apparent mistake on record, and the appellant's applications amounted to seeking a review without valid grounds. Citing the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in Interscape vs. Commissioner, it was emphasized that rectification of mistake is limited to errors apparent from the record and does not extend to debatable points of law or facts. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appellant's applications for rectification.

This judgment revolved around the issue of rectification of mistake in the Tribunal's final order concerning the cum-duty benefit. The appellant sought rectification, claiming the Tribunal erred in not allowing the cum-duty benefit while upholding the service tax demand. However, upon review, it was established that the cum-duty benefit was not contested by the appellant during the original appeal or before the Adjudicating Authority. The Tribunal emphasized that rectification is limited to correcting errors apparent from the record and cannot be used to revisit debatable legal or factual issues. Citing the Interscape case, the Tribunal highlighted that rectification does not apply to debatable matters. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appellant's applications for rectification, maintaining the original order.