2018 (11) TMI 1294 - AT - Service Tax

Rectification of Mistake - applicant submitted that the order dated 15.06.2017 passed by the Tribunal remanding the matter back to the adjudicating authority with a direction to the appellant to produce the CA certificate regarding the input credit is beyond the grounds of appeal and the Order-in-Original and this is an error which is apparent on the face of the record. Held that - There is no error apparent on the face of the record which can be corrected by allowing the application of the applicant - the Tribunal has only remanded the matter back to the original authority to decide the claim of the appellant afresh after complying with the principles of natural justice. Against the said order, appellant has already moved the Hon ble High Court and the matter is sub judice before the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka. In view of these facts, we do not think it appropriate to modify the impugned order dated 15.06.2017. ROM application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of mistake in the order passed by the Tribunal dated 15.06.2017 regarding the irregular availment of cenvat credit.

Analysis:
The applicant filed miscellaneous applications seeking rectification of a mistake in the Tribunal's order dated 15.06.2017, which allowed the appeal by way of remand. The issue revolved around the irregular availment of cenvat credit, specifically regarding the disallowance of credit on the ground of insufficient details of input service providers and documents. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner had disallowed a part of the credit beyond the scope of the show cause notice. The Tribunal, in para 11 of the order, remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority with directions similar to a previous Final Order, emphasizing that the authority should not go beyond the allegations in the show cause notice. The appellant was directed to produce a certificate from statutory auditors regarding the payment of service tax liability. The applicant argued that the Tribunal's direction to produce the CA certificate was beyond the grounds of appeal and Order-in-Original, constituting an error on the face of the record.

The Revenue contested the applications, stating that there was no apparent error in the Tribunal's order, which merely remanded the matter for a fresh decision by the adjudicating authority. The Revenue argued that the applicant's attempt to review the entire case on merit through the rectification application was beyond the scope of such an application. The Tribunal, after considering both parties' submissions and the record, found no error that warranted correction. It noted that the matter was already sub judice before the High Court, and therefore, it was inappropriate to modify the impugned order. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the applications, emphasizing that the order had only remanded the matter for a fresh decision based on natural justice principles, and any further review should be pursued through the ongoing High Court proceedings.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision centered on the scope of rectification of mistake applications, the limits of the Tribunal's order regarding remand and production of documents, and the ongoing judicial proceedings before the High Court. The judgment underscored the importance of adherence to procedural fairness and the proper forum for challenging legal decisions.