2019 (5) TMI 239 - AT - Service Tax

Rectification of Mistake - apparent error on the face of record or not - HELD THAT - There indeed is an inadvertent apparent error, which is rectified - ROM Application allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Rectification of mistake in the Final Order Nos.40251-40254/2019 regarding service tax demands and appeals ST/146/2011 & ST/268/2011, discrepancies in demands, remand of the case to the adjudicating authority, errors in the Final Order, contentions of the appellant and the Revenue, consideration of supporting documents, and rectification of the Final Order.

Comprehensive Analysis:
The judgment involved the rectification of mistakes in the Final Order Nos.40251-40254/2019 related to service tax demands and appeals ST/146/2011 & ST/268/2011. The appellant contended that there were apparent errors on the face of the record that needed rectification. The demands were confirmed for specific amounts in relation to various services, including GTA services, export of services, and services rendered to SEZ. The department also filed appeals aggrieved by the dropping of demands on reimbursable charges, seeking remand for reconsideration. The Tribunal reserved orders after hearing all appeals and subsequently issued Final Order No.40251-40254/2019, partly allowing the appellant's appeals and remanding them in part regarding service tax on GTA services.

The Final Order stated that the demands related to reimbursable expenses were set aside based on the facts and legal precedents. However, discrepancies arose in the order portion regarding the treatment of Revenue's appeals and the appellant's appeals. The Tribunal's findings in paras 5 to 7 of the Final Order contradicted the order portion, leading to an apparent error on the face of the record. The appellant prayed for the rectification of the mistake in the Final Order.

The Revenue, represented by Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, refuted the appellant's contentions, arguing that the matter had been remanded due to lack of supporting documents regarding services to SEZ. However, after hearing both sides and reviewing the case facts, the Tribunal found that there was a mistake in the Final Order. The Tribunal clarified that the Revenue's appeals should have been dismissed, and the appellant's appeals should have been partly allowed and partly remanded. The Tribunal rectified the error in the Final Order, changing the wording to dismiss the Revenue's appeals instead of treating them as allowed by remand.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the Rectification of Mistake (ROM) applications, rectified the error in the Final Order, and pronounced the order accordingly on 01.05.2019.