2019 (3) TMI 1383 - AT - Service Tax

Rectification of mistake - typographical mistake - Held that - In respect of the first rectification sought for namely, repetition of Appeal No.ST/41748/2015 in para 15.5, it is very obviously a typographical mistake, considering the discussions contained in the entire order which is apparent on the face of record. Hence para 15.5 of the Tribunal Final Order No.41891-41896/2018 dt. 29.06.2018 is ordered to be rectified. In respect of the second point for rectification prayed by assessee, it is apparent from the facts on record that in the appeal wise table provided by the assessee in respect of Appeal ST/42180/2017, the said table did indicate disputed amounts with reference to BDA also, in addition to KHB - The errors pointed out by the applicant are patent errors of typographical mistake and omission and does not require any long drawn process of argument or hearing to find out the error. The errors being apparent on record we consider that these require rectification. ROM Application allowed.

Summary

Issues: Rectification of Mistakes in Final Order

Issue 1: Rectification of Appeal Number Typographical Error
The assessee filed applications for rectification of mistakes in the Final Order due to typographical errors. The appeal number was incorrectly recorded as ST/41748/2015 in paragraph 15.5, whereas the correct number should have been ST/42180/2017. The Tribunal acknowledged this as a typographical mistake and rectified the order accordingly, setting aside demands and penalties confirmed in the impugned order for the correct appeal number.

Issue 2: Inclusion of Details Concerning Bangalore Development Authority
The second rectification sought by the assessee involved the omission of details regarding Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) in the Final Order. The table provided by the assessee correctly indicated the disputed amounts related to both Karnataka Housing Board and BDA. However, in the Final Order, the details of projects of BDA were missing under the projects mentioned, despite references to BDA in the heading and discussions. The Tribunal found these to be patent errors of typographical mistake and omission, rectifying the table under para-4 at page 7 to include the correct details for Appeal ST/42180/2017. The demands related to BDA were set aside, and the rectification was allowed based on the errors being apparent on record.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rectified the Final Order to correct the appeal number and include the necessary details concerning Bangalore Development Authority, addressing the typographical errors and omissions pointed out by the assessee. The rectification was deemed necessary based on the clear discrepancies in the order, ensuring accuracy and completeness in the documentation of demands and penalties.