2017 (10) TMI 561 - AT - Service Tax

Rectification of mistake - Principles of Natural Justice - Several material facts covered by the SCN were not considered - Held that - On perusal of the final order passed by the Tribunal, it is seen that after consideration of all the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants, the impugned orders have been set aside and matter remanded for a denovo decision on the subject in the light of the law laid down by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Larsen & Toubro 2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT . It is settled position of law that it is not necessary to mention the specific words of the counsel in the order/decision. The decision should only be the cumulative effect of all the arguments. The normal principle of law is that once a judgment is pronounced or order is made by the court, Tribunal or adjudicating authority, it becomes functus officio and hence cannot re-decide the matter in the light of fresh arguments - The points advanced in the ROM are those which require re-appraisal of the evidence and law which is not allowed by way of rectification of mistake. ROM application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:

Rectification of mistakes apparent on record in the final order passed by the Tribunal for two appeals.

Analysis:

The appellant filed a Miscellaneous application seeking rectification of mistakes in the final order passed by the Tribunal for two appeals. The appellant's counsel argued that the Tribunal did not consider various material facts covered by the show cause notices, facts brought on record, and pleas based on material facts and law. The appellant emphasized that the final order did not accurately reflect the arguments presented both orally and in written submissions. Specific points highlighted included the time limit under section 73 of the Finance Act 1974, the invocation of the suppression clause, and the nature of services rendered by the appellant. The appellant relied on legal precedents to support their contentions.

The Revenue, represented by the learned DR, contended that the appellant's arguments did not constitute errors apparent on the face of the record but rather amounted to re-appreciation of evidence, seeking to re-decide the matter. Citing a Supreme Court decision, the Revenue argued that only errors that are patent, manifest, and self-evident can be corrected, and pre-appraisal of evidence is impermissible at the stage of rectification. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal observed that the appellant's arguments required re-appraisal of evidence and law, which is not permissible through rectification of mistake. The Tribunal noted that the impugned orders had been set aside, and the matter was remanded for a denovo decision in line with legal principles established by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal emphasized that the cumulative effect of all arguments should reflect in the decision without the need to mention specific words of the counsel. The Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous application, granting the appellant the liberty to present arguments before the adjudicating authority during de novo proceedings.

In conclusion, the Tribunal clarified that once a judgment is pronounced, the authority becomes functus officio and cannot re-decide the matter based on fresh arguments. The Tribunal highlighted that rectification does not permit a review of the order passed, as established by legal precedents. The decision emphasized the importance of adhering to legal principles and the need for a detailed order based on the cumulative effect of arguments presented.