Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2020 (7) TMI 294 - AT - Service TaxRectification of mistake - typographical order - errors are impressed upon to be the error apparent on record - HELD THAT - The very perusal makes it ample clear that once an activity is not taxable the order confirming the tax liability cannot be passed and thus is an error. Hence there is no hesitation to hold that the word upheld in the is a typographical error. It should be read as the order to that extent is hereby set aside . With respect to the remaining mistakes as pointed out by the applicant since those have been objected as being out of scope of the rectification we first need to highlight the scope of rectification. The Tribunal no doubt can recall its order in view of Section 129 B (1) of Central Excise Act 1944. Anything to become the subject matter of rectification it has to be self evident obvious and palpable mistake which do not require any further deliberations. Reverting to the remaining submissions of the applicant when read along with the final order it is observed that the plea about the composition scheme has clearly been dealt with as specific finding that the rate at which the Appellant has paid the duty is in itself sufficient that he has not availed the benefit of composition scheme. Hence there was no reason with this Tribunal to order for any consequential benefit - Coming to the calculation error as pointed out since the same involves a long drawn procedure of verifying the record which otherwise is out of the scope of the Tribunal. The mistake as alleged is therefore not at all self evident hence cannot be called as error apparent on record. As for as the plea of cum-tax-benefit is concerned the plea has not been raised in grounds of appeal. The allegation that the same was not considered by this Tribunal despite been submitted is therefore not sustainable. The request about making a typographical correction in para-8 of the final order has been considered rest all the requests have been declined - Application allowed in part.
|