2019 (3) TMI 1385 - AT - Service Tax

Rectification of mistake - error apparent on the face of record or not - Held that - The error pointed out by the ld. Counsel is not an error apparent on the face of record. It requires long drawn process of argument to find out what is the error that is alleged in the application. The error is not patent or it is not a mistake which can be found out by bare perusal of the impugned order - ROM application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of alleged mistakes in the final order regarding credit availed on outdoor catering services and accommodation service.

Analysis:
The appellant sought rectification of alleged mistakes in the final order passed by the Tribunal related to the credit availed on outdoor catering services and accommodation service. The appellant argued that the credit availed on outdoor catering services to customers and for providing computer coaching and training services should be allowed. The appellant relied on a judgment by the Hon'ble High Court which stated that outdoor catering service is eligible for credit even after a certain date if not for personal consumption. However, the Tribunal had disallowed the credit based on a decision by the Larger Bench in a different case. The appellant contended that the disallowance of credit in the final order was an error apparent on the face of the record and should be rectified.

The department, represented by the ld. AR, opposed the appellant's arguments. The department submitted that the Tribunal had rightly disallowed the credit on outdoor catering service based on the decision of the Larger Bench, which excluded such services from the definition of input service. The department emphasized that the judgment cited by the appellant was related to insurance service, not outdoor catering service. Therefore, the decision of the Larger Bench should prevail as it directly addressed the issue of outdoor catering service.

The key issue before the Tribunal was to determine whether the alleged error pointed out by the appellant was indeed an error apparent on the face of the record necessitating rectification. The Tribunal noted that it had thoroughly considered the issue of outdoor catering service in the final order and had relied on the decision of the Larger Bench. The Tribunal highlighted that the judgment cited by the appellant pertained to insurance service, not outdoor catering service. Therefore, the decision of the Larger Bench on outdoor catering service was deemed applicable to the case. The Tribunal concluded that the error pointed out was not apparent on the face of the record and would require a detailed argument to identify. As such, the alleged error was not patent and could not be discerned merely by perusing the final order.

In the final analysis, the Tribunal found no error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned order that warranted rectification. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the applications seeking rectification.