2020 (7) TMI 292 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay in filing Rectification of Mistake application - time limitation as provided in Section 35 C of the Central Excise Act - HELD THAT - The limitation was applicable to the Tribunal for taking suo moto action for rectification of mistake, but the aggrieved party can file an application for rectification of mistake at any time, but showing the reasons for causing the delay, that there has been injustice done to them due to error in the order of this Tribunal - further, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sunita Devi Singhania Hospital Trust 2008 (11) TMI 249 - SUPREME COURT was not available to the Larger Bench of the Tribunal. The delay in filing the Rectification of Mistake Application as the delay has been reasonably explained, is condoned - ROM application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of mistake in a legal judgment regarding the tax demand amount mentioned in the final order.

Analysis:
The appellant filed a rectification of mistake (ROM) application against a Final Order that set aside a tax demand of ?1,10,40,683 instead of the correct amount of ?4,10,40,683. The appellant had filed a refund claim, but the Asstt. Commissioner faced difficulty due to the error in the Final Order. The appellant explained the error and filed the rectification application promptly. The Revenue agreed on the typographical error but questioned the Tribunal's power to condone the delay beyond six months. The appellant cited Section 35C of the Central Excise Act, similar to Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, allowing rectification within a specific time frame.

The Supreme Court's interpretation in Sree Ayyanar Spg. & Wvg. Mills Ltd. case clarified the two parts of Section 254(2), allowing rectification within four years. The Karnataka High Court applied this interpretation to Central Excise Act's Section 35C(2), stating that the limitation does not apply to applications by aggrieved parties. The Apex Court in Sunitadevi Singhania Hospital Trust case emphasized the Tribunal's power to recall an order for justice, irrespective of the limitation period. The judgment highlighted that while the limitation applies to the Tribunal's suo moto actions, parties can apply at any time with valid reasons for delay.

Considering the Apex Court's rulings, the Tribunal condoned the delay in the rectification application, explaining that the delay was reasonably justified. The rectification was allowed, correcting the tax demand amount to ?4,10,40,683 in the Final Order. The Tribunal emphasized that subsequent detailed rulings supersede earlier orders without reasoning, making the earlier decisions non-binding. Both the Rectification of Mistake application and the Condonation of Delay application were allowed, granting the appellant consequential benefits as per the law.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rectified the mistake in the Final Order regarding the tax demand amount, clarified the interpretation of relevant legal provisions, and allowed the rectification application with condonation of delay, ensuring justice and adherence to legal principles.