2019 (11) TMI 497 - AT - Service Tax

Rectification of mistake - error apparent on the face of record or not - reopening of the case - HELD THAT - Para-13 of the impugned final order which, in fact, has been quoted in the impugned application is itself sufficient to reflect that all the contentions as were raised by the appellant have duly been dealt with in the said final order. As far as the arbitrary/vagueness of a show-cause notice is concerned, the same is held to be correct in principle. The decision cannot be re-opened under the guise of rectification of mistake. Reliance placed in the case of M/S. SRF LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE-CHENNAI-I 2019 (4) TMI 750 - CESTAT NEW DELHI which clarifies that a decision on debatable point of law or fact cannot be corrected by way of rectification. Otherwise also the impugned final order has remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority below for quantification of the demand. There seems no error which is apparent of its record in the impugned final order - Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of mistake in the final order dated 05.12.2018 regarding the impugned show-cause notice dated 16.10.2012.

Analysis:
The present order addressed an application seeking rectification of a mistake in the final order dated 05.12.2018. The appellant contended that the Tribunal had erred in not addressing specific contentions made against the impugned order-in-original dated 31.03.2014. These contentions included the lack of specific categorization of demand in the show-cause notice, a precedent where demand was set aside due to lack of bifurcation, and the omission of other grounds and submissions in the appeal. The appellant relied on certain legal decisions to support their arguments. The department, however, argued that the appeal had been allowed by way of remand, confirming the demand of Service Tax in principle but leaving the quantification to the adjudicating authority for denovo adjudication. The department contended that all grounds raised by the appellant were not subject to rectification. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal observed that the show-cause notice had proposed a demand based on alleged suppression of taxable amounts collected from clients for security agency and manpower supply services. The final order considered and rejected the appellant's contentions, citing legal precedents and directing the quantification of the demand based on financial year-wise service tax value. The Tribunal found no error apparent on the face of the record and dismissed the application for rectification.

The Tribunal emphasized that the show-cause notice was not vague or arbitrary, as contended by the appellant, and that the decision in the final order was based on established legal principles. Referring to a previous decision, the Tribunal clarified that rectification cannot correct a decision on a debatable point of law or fact. The final order had remanded the matter for quantification of the demand, and the Tribunal found no evident error in its decision. Consequently, the application for rectification was dismissed. The Tribunal's decision was pronounced in open court on 11.11.2019.