2017 (12) TMI 961 - AT - Service Tax

Rectification of mistake - case of appellant is that in para 11(i) of the Final order, it is mentioned that courses which train the students for award of university degree such as B Sc. BBA etc. in our view such courses cannot be considered as vocational courses. , which according to learned Counsel is wrong - Held that - the appellant has already got the substantial relief and there is no further scope to grant the relief - It may be mentioned that under the garb of rectification, a fresh order cannot be passed by the Tribunal. It may be mentioned that every sentence or words or argument cannot be reproduced in the order. Only cumulative effect will have to be mentioned in the order. Rectification of Mistake application is misuse of judicial process, and the same has no merit. - ROM application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of mistake application regarding apparent error in Tribunal's order.

Analysis:
The Rectification of Mistake (ROM) application was filed to address an error in the Tribunal's order dated 17.8.2017. The counsel for the appellant contested the order, citing a Delhi High Court decision and arguing that certain courses should not be considered vocational. The Tribunal had confirmed a demand for service tax under "Commercial Training or Coaching Centre" category for a specific period. The definition of "Commercial Training or Coaching Centre" was discussed, including an explanation inserted by the Finance Act, 2010. The Tribunal analyzed whether the activities of the institute fell within this definition and addressed the issue of exemption under specific notifications for vocational training institutes.

The Tribunal found that the institute's activities did fall under the definition of a "Commercial Training or Coaching Centre" due to the retrospective amendment. However, it restricted the service tax demand to the normal time limit, setting aside any demand beyond that. The institute was deemed eligible for exemption under specific notifications only for certain courses, not those leading to a degree from a U.K. University. The order was modified to uphold the demand within the normal time limit, and the matter was remanded for re-quantification without imposing penalties.

The Tribunal emphasized that a fresh order cannot be passed under the guise of rectification, citing relevant legal precedents. It concluded that the Rectification of Mistake application was a misuse of the judicial process and dismissed it. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the legal provisions, definitions, and notifications relevant to the case, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the decision-making process.