2019 (5) TMI 69 - AT - Service Tax

Rectification of Mistake - error apparent on the face of record - HELD THAT - The bench in Para 8, 9 10 has categorically came to a conclusion that the activity undertaken by the appellant may not be covered under works contract service, accordingly, arrived at a conclusion and appeals were disposed of. By filing this application, we are of the view that appellant seeks to reargue the entire matter on merits, which is not the purport or mandate of the provisions of Sec.35C of Central Excise Act, 1944, made applicable to the Finance Act, 1994. There is no merit on the application - ROM application dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Rectification of mistake in Final Order regarding Works Contract Services under Central Excise Act, 1944 and Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis:
The judgment in the present case pertains to an application seeking rectification of mistake in the Final Order dated 16.01.2019 concerning the classification of the activity undertaken by the appellant under the category of 'Works Contract Services'. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the bench may have overlooked the definition of 'Works Contract Services' while passing the order. However, the tribunal, in Para 8, 9 & 10 of the order, categorically concluded that the activity undertaken by the appellant may not fall under the ambit of works contract service. The tribunal emphasized that the application appears to be an attempt to reargue the entire matter on merits, which does not align with the provisions of Sec.35C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, extended to the Finance Act, 1994. Therefore, the tribunal dismissed the application, stating that there is no merit in the appellant's contentions.

In conclusion, the tribunal, comprising Mr. M.V. Ravindran and Mr. P. Venkata Subba Rao, Members, held that the application for rectification of mistake in the Final Order was not justified. The tribunal found that the appellant's attempt to challenge the classification of the activity as not falling under works contract service was not in line with the legal provisions governing such matters. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the application, emphasizing that the appellant's intention seemed to be to reargue the entire case on its merits, which was not permissible under the relevant statutory provisions.