2017 (7) TMI 1038 - AT - Service Tax

Rectification of mistake - date of realization of the export proceeds has been wrongly submitted - Held that - I allow correction of the date from 29/02/2014 to 29/08/2014 in last but one sentence of Para 4 of said Final Order No.A/170760-70761/2016 dated 31/08/2016. Further, I hold that all other contentions in the said Para 5 of the ROM Application are totally wrong when compared with the record as reflected in above stated Para 13 of Appeal memorandum so far as it related to allegations made against counsel and facts on record. I, therefore, hold that there was no mistake apparent of the facts on the face of record save as corrected in respect of typographical mistake about date which was recorded as 29/02/2014 - ROM application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of mistake in Final Order

Analysis:
The case involves a Rectification of Mistake (ROM) Application filed by the Revenue in Appeal No. ST/70082/2016 requesting a correction in Final Order No. A[70760-70761/2016-SM[BR] dated 31/08/2016. The Departmental Representative presented the ROM Application, and the Counsel for the respondent pointed out discrepancies in the application verified by the Commissioner Service Tax, Noida. The Counsel highlighted errors in the dates of realization of export proceeds mentioned in the ROM Application and Final Order. Specifically, discrepancies were noted in the dates related to refund claims filed and the receipt of foreign exchange. The Counsel argued that the date mentioned in the Final Order as 29/02/2014 was a typographical mistake and should be corrected to 29/08/2014. The Counsel also emphasized that the allegations made against the party's counsel in the ROM Application were baseless and objectionable. The Tribunal reviewed the contentions of both parties and allowed the correction of the date from 29/02/2014 to 29/08/2014 in the Final Order. The Tribunal found that apart from this correction, the facts in the Final Order aligned with those in the appeal memorandum, and dismissed the remaining contentions in the ROM Application.

In conclusion, the Tribunal granted the correction of the typographical error in the Final Order while rejecting the other contentions raised in the ROM Application. The Tribunal emphasized that the allegations against the party's counsel were unfounded and had no merit. The judgment clarified that there was no mistake apparent on the face of the record, except for the specified correction. The Tribunal's decision was based on a thorough examination of the facts presented in the appeal memorandum and the discrepancies highlighted by the parties during the proceedings.