2018 (9) TMI 990 - AT - Service Tax

Rectification of mistake - Principles of Natural Justice - payment of Service Tax, by making use of the Cenvat Credit account - Section 66A of FA - it is contended that the Final Order has been passed without consideration of statutory provisions in proper perspective and without considering the various case laws on the subject - Held that - The final order is a detailed speaking order and has been passed only after taking note of all the written and oral arguments raised. It will not be proper to take the view that it has been passed summarily without considering the statutory provisions. The Tribunal has taken a view as reflected in the Final Order only after cumulatively considering the statutory provisions, the findings of the Adjudicating Authority as well as the arguments placed. It is not required to discuss at length each and every argument advanced. The appellant through ROM has attempted the review of the Final Order already passed which is not permissible in the guise of rectification of mistake. ROM application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Taxability of outstanding amounts from associated enterprises.
2. Utilization of Cenvat Credit for Service Tax under Reverse Charge Mechanism.

Analysis:
1. The appeal involved two main issues. Firstly, the taxability of outstanding amounts from associated enterprises was allowed in favor of the appellant. Secondly, the utilization of Cenvat Credit for Service Tax under Reverse Charge Mechanism for the period 2006-2008 was dismissed by the Tribunal. The appellant argued that the Final Order did not properly consider statutory provisions and binding precedents. The appellant contended that Cenvat Credit could be used for Service Tax on reverse charge basis citing relevant rules and case laws. The appellant also highlighted the power of rectification of mistake and emphasized the need for justice in decision-making.

2. The Revenue strongly opposed the arguments, stating that the Final Order was detailed and considered all arguments. The Revenue argued that the Final Order discussed relevant provisions and there was no error apparent on record. The Revenue emphasized that the appellant should challenge the order through an appeal rather than seeking a review through a ROM application. The Revenue also cited specific case laws to support their position. Additionally, the appellant filed a Miscellaneous Application for implementation of the Final Order under the GST regime, which was declined by the Tribunal based on the transitional provisions under GST law.

3. The Tribunal analyzed the arguments presented by both sides. The Tribunal noted that the Final Order was passed after considering all arguments and statutory provisions. The Tribunal emphasized that the appeal was argued differently during the hearing, and the new arguments along with case laws were not presented earlier. Referring to the Supreme Court's decision, the Tribunal highlighted that an error apparent on the face of the record should be clear and not require extensive reasoning. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's attempt to review the Final Order through a ROM application was not permissible, and hence, the ROM application was dismissed. Regarding the implementation of the Final Order under the GST regime, the Tribunal decided that compliance should be made in accordance with the transitional provisions of the GST law.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the ROM application and the Miscellaneous Application seeking directions for implementation under the GST regime. The judgment highlighted the importance of proper consideration of statutory provisions, case laws, and the limitations on seeking review of final orders.