2019 (5) TMI 70 - AT - Service Tax

Rectification of mistake - error apparent on the face of the record - HELD THAT - There is no order seeking demand from the appellant on this category and got included in the amount demanded under the works contract service. Since we have set aside the demands of works contract automatically these demands also get set aside. Demands of CENVAT credit of ₹ 13,91,586/- - HELD THAT - There is no dispute as to that appellant assessee had availed ineligible CENVAT credit of the payment of service tax, accordingly, we hold that the demand of ₹ 13,91,586/- needs to be confirmed along with interest - Since the issue involved in the case could be one of interpretation, penalty sought to be visited on the appellant for this amount is set aside. Application for rectification of mistake filed by the Revenue is partly allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved: Rectification of error in Final Order regarding service tax on Goods Transport Agency services and recovery of CENVAT credit.

Analysis:

1. The application seeks rectification of error in the Final Order dated 08.08.2018. The Revenue contends that while the main issue of works contract was covered in the judgment, the service tax on Goods Transport Agency services and the recovery of CENVAT credit were not addressed. The Adjudicating Authority had confirmed the service tax amount of &8377; 1,37,882/- and the CENVAT credit of &8377; 13,91,586/-, which were not specifically dealt with in the Tribunal's order.

2. Upon review, it was found that there was indeed an error apparent on the face of the record. The Adjudicating Authority had decided two points, including the Goods Transport Agency services issue and the CENVAT credit demand, which were contested by the appellant. The Tribunal noted that the service tax amount on Goods Transport Agency services was clubbed with other demands under works contract services. Since the demands under works contract were set aside, the demands related to Goods Transport Agency services were also deemed set aside.

3. Regarding the CENVAT credit demand of &8377; 13,91,586/-, the Tribunal found that the Adjudicating Authority had separately confirmed this demand. The appellant did not seriously contest this matter, acknowledging the ineligible CENVAT credit availed for the payment of service tax. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the demand for &8377; 13,91,586/- along with interest, while setting aside the penalty imposed on the appellant for this amount, considering the issue could be one of interpretation.

4. The Tribunal partially allowed the application for rectification of mistake filed by the Revenue, addressing the errors in the Final Order. The judgment was pronounced in open court on 25/03/2019, providing clarity on the rectification of errors in the original order.