9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 421X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Deva Metal Powders Pvt Ltd., Vs Commissioner, Trade Tax, UP 2007 (12) TMI 221 - SUPREME COURT] in which Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "a mistake which can be rectified is one which is patent, which is obvious and whose discovery is not dependent on any argument or elaboration, rectification of an order does not mean obliteration of order originally passed and its substitution by a new order. Where an error is far from self-evident, it ceased to be an apparent error." In this case Adjudicating Authority by Order-in-Original No. 88/2022- 23-Adjn dated 25.05.2022 substituted a new order in place of Order-in- Appeal No. 78/2022-Adjn dated 22.03.2022 which is beyond his jurisdiction. Conclusio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 22.03.2022 has been passed with the following directions/order by Adjudicating Authority, which is thus:- I. I confirm demand and order for recovery of an amount of Rs. 3341/- (Rupees Three Thousand Three Hundred and Forty One only) from M/s Sreeja's Facilities being the Service Tax in terms of proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 for the reasons discussed supra; II. I confirm demand of interest at the applicable rates on the amount mentioned at Sl No (i) above, under section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017; III. I impose an equal penalty Rs. 3341/- (Rupees Three Thousand Three Hundred and Forty One only) on M/s Sreeja's Facilities, under Section 77 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the wrong figures shown in the Show cause Notice and not any interpretation of law. This is an amendment order for the OIO No. 78/2022-Adjn passed by me on 22.03.2022 on my own motion as the OIO No. 78 is not under any appeal or Reviewed by Commissioner as on today and the Order has been modified to the extent specified below. Order Under Section 74(1) ORDER I. I do not confirm the demand of Rs. 3,341/-(Rupees Three Thousand Three Hundred and Forty One only) from M/s Sreeja's Facilities being the Service Tax in terms of proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 for the reasons discussed supra; II. There is no pending interest liability under section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994, as the interest on delayed payments have bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer can rectify his order if any mistake apparent from the record. Therefore, Adjudicating Authority only rectifies any mistake which is apparently shows. The Adjudicating Authority cannot do anything which is not permissible in law. 10. Departmental Representative relied on Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Deva Metal Powders Pvt Ltd., Vs Commissioner, Trade Tax, UP [2008 (221) ELT 16 (SC)] in which Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "a mistake which can be rectified is one which is patent, which is obvious and whose discovery is not dependent on any argument or elaboration, rectification of an order does not mean obliteration of order originally passed and its substitution by a new order. Where an error is far from self-evi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
