2019 (5) TMI 64 - AT - Service Tax

Rectification of Mistake - error apparent on the face of record - HELD THAT - Two errors are apparent on the records and accordingly they are rectified. Revenue is seeking another error for rectification is that the Commissioner should not have delegated the power of adjudication to lower authorities and this point was not considered by the Bench - HELD THAT - In the grounds of appeal, Revenue has not contested as to how the CENVAT Credit which has been allowed is incorrect - there is no error apparent on the face of this order as urged by learned Departmental Representative. Application for ROM disposed off.

Summary

Issues: Rectification of mistake in Final Order, Delegation of adjudication power

Rectification of Mistake in Final Order:
The case involved an application by the Revenue seeking rectification of a mistake in the Final Order. The Tribunal noted factual errors in para No. 4 and para No. 5 of the order. The errors related to the allowance and disallowance of CENVAT Credit and Education Cess. The Tribunal rectified these errors as they were apparent on the records. The Revenue also raised an issue regarding the delegation of adjudication power by the Commissioner to lower authorities. However, the Tribunal found that the Revenue had not contested the correctness of the allowed CENVAT Credit in the grounds of appeal. The Tribunal referred to a previous order where a similar issue was decided in favor of the appellant assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal found no error in the order regarding the delegation of adjudication power, as argued by the Revenue. The application for rectification of mistake was disposed of accordingly.

Delegation of Adjudication Power:
The Revenue contended that the Commissioner should not have delegated the power of adjudication to lower authorities, and this issue was not considered by the Tribunal. Upon review, the Tribunal found that the Revenue had not challenged the correctness of the allowed CENVAT Credit in the appeal grounds. The Tribunal referenced a prior order where a similar issue was decided favorably for the appellant assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that there was no apparent error in the order concerning the delegation of adjudication power. As a result, the application for rectification of mistake was disposed of without finding any fault in the delegation of adjudication power.

This judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Hyderabad, delivered by Mr. M.V. Ravindran and Mr. P.V. Subba Rao, addressed the issues of rectification of mistakes in the Final Order and the delegation of adjudication power by the Commissioner. The Tribunal corrected factual errors in the order related to CENVAT Credit and Education Cess. It also analyzed the Revenue's argument against the delegation of adjudication power, ultimately finding no error in the decision. The application for rectification was disposed of based on these findings.