2018 (11) TMI 842 - AT - Service Tax

Rectification of mistake - section 35C(2) of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that - The decision of the Government of India supra is neither binding on us nor should be so construed as to deny the present application which seeks a limited relief within the scope of section 35C(2) of Central Excise Act, 1944. That opinion was also not available to persuade the Tribunal in composing the final order, now sought to be rectified, that was rendered. Doubtlessy, numerosity adaptation effect should not influence judicial decisions but it would do well for the applicant Commissioner not to be oblivious of the congruity of cognition on duty free supplies and to forbear from projecting any dissonance with the decision of the Tribunal as lapsus calami. There are no mistakes apparent in the record, as well as in the decision of the Tribunal, to warrant rectification - application dismissed.

Issues:
Dispute over eligibility for rebate of tax paid under Finance Act, 1994 on renting of immovable property for export of goods between April 2014 and March 2015 as per notification no. 41/2012-ST. Alleged mistakes in final order regarding 'taxable territory' and exclusion of duty free shops from taxable territory. Application under section 35C(2) of Central Excise Act, 1944 for rectification of errors in the Tribunal's final order.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Eligibility for Rebate
The dispute revolves around the eligibility for a rebate of tax paid under the Finance Act, 1994 on renting immovable property for export of goods between specific dates. The Revenue contends that the Tribunal's final order contained mistakes that need rectification. The dispute focuses on the interpretation of notification no. 41/2012-ST and section 93A of the Finance Act, 1994. The Revenue argues that the Tribunal erred in emphasizing 'taxable territory' and exceeding the scope of the appeal by delving into the authority of law for tax collection from a specific entity. The dispute also involves the consideration of written submissions filed by the Revenue, which the Tribunal allegedly ignored.

Issue 2: 'Taxable Territory' Interpretation
The debate regarding 'taxable territory' arises from the Revenue's assertion that the Tribunal erred in excluding duty-free shops in international airports from the taxable territory. The Revenue argues that the Tribunal's focus on 'taxable territory' and the definition of 'India' in relevant statutes was mistaken. However, the Tribunal clarified that Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is not meant for altering final decisions but for rectifying apparent mistakes. The Tribunal emphasized that disagreement with the reasoning adopted does not constitute a mistake that warrants rectification.

Issue 3: Rectification Application
The Tribunal rejected the application for rectification, stating that the alleged mistakes were not apparent in the record or the Tribunal's decision. The Tribunal highlighted that attempts to review or challenge the Tribunal's finding on 'taxable territory' were beyond the scope of the rectification process under Section 35C(2). The Tribunal emphasized that the decision on the interpretation of 'taxable territory' and related legal concepts falls within the purview of the appellate remedies prescribed in the statute.

Conclusion:
In summary, the judgment delves into the intricate legal nuances surrounding the eligibility for a rebate of tax paid under the Finance Act, 1994 and the interpretation of 'taxable territory.' The Tribunal's decision to reject the rectification application underscores the limitations of Section 35C(2) in altering final decisions and the need for disputes on legal interpretations to be addressed through appropriate appellate channels. The detailed analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the legal reasoning and the Tribunal's stance on the issues raised in the case.

← Previous Next →