2018 (2) TMI 319 - AT - Service Tax

Rectification of mistake - Since the grounds stated in the appeal was not considered by the Tribunal, he pleaded that the final order may be recalled and that those grounds stated in the appeal memorandum may be considered - Held that - the Tribunal has noted that there is no dispute that Catering Services provided by the appellant, was taxable. It is also seen that the order was dictated and pronounced in open court on the same date of hearing of the appeal. Thus, there is a categorical recording by the Tribunal that the appellant does not dispute the taxability of the services - The present application for rectification of mistake is filed by another counsel Shri S. Murugappan, who has not appeared at the time of hearing of the appeal. Therefore, there is no basis to contend that there was no concession on the part of the counsel for the appellant, that the taxability of the services was not disputed. In the case of Anshita Chawla and Ramesh Chawla 2015 (8) TMI 1366 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , it was noted by the Tribunal that when no objection was raised by the appellant s counsel with regard to the recordings made at the time of disposing the case finally, the contention raised by the appellant for rectification of mistake thereafter cannot be entertained. There is no error apparent on the face of record, which requires rectification - ROM application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of mistake in the final order regarding the taxability of Catering Services provided by the appellant.

Analysis:
The appellant filed an application seeking rectification of a mistake in the Final Order passed by the Tribunal in an appeal. The appellant argued that the Tribunal did not consider the grounds raised in the appeal, which led to an error that needed rectification. The appellant specifically contested the taxability of the Catering Service provided. However, the respondent opposed the application, stating that there was no apparent error as the Tribunal had considered fresh submissions from both sides before passing the final order. The respondent relied on previous judgments to support their stance.

Upon hearing both sides and reviewing the records, the Tribunal noted that the appellant did not dispute the taxability of the Catering Services provided. The Tribunal observed that the order was dictated and pronounced in open court on the same date as the appeal hearing. The appellant claimed that various grounds disputing the taxability were raised in the appeal, but the Tribunal had already noted during the hearing that there was no dispute regarding the taxability of the services. The Tribunal highlighted the main grounds raised by the appellant in the appeal memorandum.

It was noted that even though the appellant contended that certain grounds were raised in the appeal memo disputing the taxability of the services, the Tribunal, based on the submissions during the hearing, recorded that there was no dispute regarding the taxability. The Tribunal also pointed out that a different counsel had appeared during the hearing, and the present application for rectification was filed by another counsel who did not participate in the appeal hearing. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that there was no basis to argue that the taxability of the services was not disputed.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found no error apparent on the face of the record that required rectification. The application for rectification of mistake was dismissed, emphasizing that when no objection was raised by the appellant's counsel during the final disposal of the case, subsequent contentions for rectification could not be entertained.