9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 20 - AT - Service TaxRectification of Mistake - appellant have pleaded that this Tribunal has failed to take into account the work order dated October 13, 2008, wherein the Annexure I mentions the scope of the work - Held that - On perusal of the work order, it appears that from electric point to electric point the scope of work also included material i.e. wiring and other material etc.; which were to be provided by the appellant - The scope of work order when considered in its letter and spirit would entitle the appellant for necessary abatement of 66% from the taxable value of service and hence may not be under the service tax net. An error apparent on the face of the record has crept in this case and, therefore, the earlier order No. 51681/2018 dated 03/05/2018 is recalled and the matter remanded for denovo adjudication to the original Adjudicating Authority which shall take into consideration the scope of work - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues: Rectification of mistake application in service tax appeal.
The appellant filed a Rectification of Mistake (ROM) application in response to the final order dated 03/05/2018, claiming that the Tribunal failed to consider a work order dated October 13, 2008, which outlined the scope of work. The appellant argued that the Tribunal's previous order did not take into account the fact that the scope of work included both material and labor costs to be provided by the appellant. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's contention, noting that the work order specified providing and fixing of electric point wiring, including material to be supplied by the appellant. The Tribunal found that the failure to consider this aspect amounted to an error apparent on the face of the record. Consequently, the Tribunal recalled the earlier order and remanded the matter to the original Adjudicating Authority for a fresh adjudication, directing them to consider the scope of work and determine the tax liability accordingly based on the relevant provisions of the service tax law at the time. The ROM application was allowed, and the appeal was allowed by way of remand.
|
