2019 (3) TMI 953 - AT - Service Tax

Rectification of mistake - review of order - scope of rectification - Held that - The scope of the rectification of the mistakes application is very limited. Only mistakes which are apparent on the face of the record and which do not require long drawn process of arguments by both sides, may be rectified. It is well settled law that applicant cannot seek review of the order in the guise of rectification of mistake - ROM application dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Rectification of mistake in the final order regarding the description of the authority, incorrect mention of training courses, distinguishing the case from a previous decision, extending the benefit of bonafide belief, and the scope of rectification of mistakes application.

Analysis:

1. Rectification of Mistake in Authority Description:
The advocate highlighted that the Final Order incorrectly mentioned the authority as Commissioner (Appeals) instead of Commissioner. The Tribunal agreed that this was an error and corrected it by deleting the word "(Appeals)" from the cause title.

2. Incorrect Mention of Training Courses:
The appellant argued that the Final Order inaccurately described the appellant as conducting MBA/BBA degree courses. The advocate contended that the appellant was not conducting training programs leading to such degrees. The Tribunal found no need for correction as the words in the order did not support the appellant's claim.

3. Distinguishing the Case from Previous Decision:
The advocate argued that the appellant, a non-profit educational institute, should be entitled to the benefit of time bar under Section 65(105) retrospectively. The Tribunal, however, upheld its decision not to extend the benefit of bonafide belief akin to a previous case. It suggested challenging the order in the appropriate appellate forum if aggrieved.

4. Scope of Rectification Application:
The Tribunal emphasized that rectification of mistakes is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record, not for reviewing the order. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal rejected the notion of seeking a review under the guise of rectification. It clarified that the applicant cannot challenge the order's findings through a rectification application.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the Rectification of Mistakes (ROM) application, except for the minor modification regarding the authority's description. The judgment underscored the limited scope of rectification applications and the inability to seek a review of the order through such means.