9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (1) TMI 567 - AT - Service TaxRectification of mistake - error apparent on the face of record - case of Revenue is that in the impugned order different judgments which were submitted by other Authorised Representative at the time of Early Hearing Application were cited. Therefore, it is his submission that all the judgments cited in the submission have not been considered. Therefore, the order needs to be corrected and effect of the written submission dated 14/09/2020 and the judgments cited therein may be given and, accordingly, the order may be corrected. HELD THAT - All the judgments are not relevant on the line of discussion and finding given in the final order dated 22.092020. Therefore, it cannot be said that submission of the learned Authorised Representative made at the time of hearing was not considered. The judgments cited in the order at para 5 may be replaced with the aforesaid judgments. With this the mistake apparent on record in the order dated 22/09/2020 stands corrected - Application allowed.
Issues:
Rectification of mistake in the Tribunal's order due to incorrect citations of judgments during the hearing. Analysis: The Revenue filed a Miscellaneous application seeking rectification of a mistake in the Tribunal's order dated 22/09/2020. The Assistant Commissioner for the Revenue argued that during the hearing, different judgments were cited by another Authorized Representative, and those citations were not considered in the final order. The Revenue sought correction to include the effect of the written submission and the judgments cited. On the other hand, the Appellant's counsel contended that the Tribunal had considered all facts and legal issues, asserting that the order was error-free. The Tribunal noted that the Authorized Representative for the Revenue had cited specific judgments during the hearing, but due to an oversight, different judgments were mentioned in the final order. The Tribunal then analyzed each of the judgments cited during the hearing to determine their relevance to the case. The first judgment, Indian National Shipowners Association vs. Union of India, dealt with the levy of service tax under the reverse charge mechanism for services received from abroad. However, in the present case, the issue was the levy of service tax on a discount extended to the buyer, not on services received, making this judgment irrelevant. The second judgment, Principal CST vs RR Global Enterprises P Ltd., focused on the strict consideration of notifications, which was not applicable in this case as no service was received by the Appellant. Similarly, the third judgment, Orchev Pharma P Ltd. vs CCE, Rajkot, concerning the admissibility of notifications, was deemed irrelevant based on the case's facts. The remaining judgments, Max Tech Oil Gas Services P Ltd. vs Commissioner, Kala Sagar vs. CST, Mumbai – II, and Board of Control for Cricket in India vs. CST, Mumbai, centered on Revenue Neutrality, which was not the basis for the decision in the present case. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that none of the judgments cited during the hearing were relevant to the final order's findings. In light of the analysis, the Tribunal determined that the judgments cited during the hearing were not aligned with the discussion and findings in the final order. Therefore, the Tribunal corrected the mistake by replacing the citations in the order with the six judgments mentioned during the hearing. By doing so, the Tribunal rectified the error apparent on record in the order dated 22/09/2020, leading to the disposal of the Miscellaneous Applications in the specified terms. The judgment was pronounced in open court on 05.01.2020.
|
