2019 (5) TMI 597 - AT - Service Tax

Rectification of mistake - though Shri Ajay Banarjee, Advocate for the appellant was available on the date of hearing on 07.05.2018 and presented the case on behalf of the appellant, but in the preamble as well as in the body of the order, it has been mentioned as None appeared for the assessee - HELD THAT - The averments made in the miscellaneous application merits consideration for recalling the final order dated 06.09.2018. Accordingly, the said order is recalled and the appeal is restored to its original number for hearing and disposal of the appeal on the limited issue of ascertaining the fact, whether such issue of show cause notice is barred by limitation or not. Appeal to come for final hearing on 28.05.2019.

Summary

Issues: Rectification of Mistakes in Final Order, Availment of Cenvat Credit, Barred by Limitation

Rectification of Mistakes in Final Order:
The judgment pertains to a miscellaneous application filed by the applicant seeking rectification of mistakes in the Final Order passed by the Tribunal. The applicant claimed that although their advocate was present during the hearing, the order incorrectly stated that "None appeared for the assessee." The applicant also argued that the department was aware of the Cenvat Credit availed for input services used in both output services and trading activities. After hearing both sides and reviewing the case records, the Tribunal found merit in the applicant's contentions. Consequently, the Tribunal recalled the final order and restored the appeal for hearing and disposal on the limited issue of determining whether the show cause notice was barred by limitation. The appeal was scheduled for final hearing on a specified date.

Availment of Cenvat Credit:
The applicant raised the issue of availment of Cenvat Credit in respect of input services used for providing output services and trading activities. The applicant argued that the department was aware of this through an audit conducted on a specific date. The Tribunal considered this argument during the proceedings and decided to recall the final order for further examination of the issue. The case was restored for a hearing specifically to determine whether the issue of show cause notice being barred by limitation had merit. This decision indicates the significance of the Cenvat Credit issue in the overall judgment and the need for a detailed assessment during the upcoming hearing.

Barred by Limitation:
One of the key issues addressed in the judgment was whether the show cause notice issued to the applicant was barred by limitation. The Tribunal, after careful consideration of the submissions and case records, decided to recall the final order and restore the appeal for a focused hearing on this specific issue. By scheduling the appeal for final hearing to ascertain the facts related to the limitation aspect, the Tribunal demonstrated the importance of resolving this issue for the overall disposition of the case. The decision to narrow down the hearing to this particular issue underscores its significance in the legal proceedings and the need for a thorough examination during the upcoming hearing on the specified date.