Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2017 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 17 - AT - Service TaxRectification of error - case of appellant is that the Tribunal proceeded on the incorrect understanding of the fact that the appellant followed the procedure under Rule 6(2) and also Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for common input services - Held that: - there is no apparent error pointed out in the said miscellaneous application. The error should be such that the same should be discernible on first look and not involve any drawn out arguments or appraisal of factual or legal position in detail. Rule 6(2) will apply only in cases, where the appellant is having both the taxable as well as exempted services and for input services used for such services. They have maintained accounts in order to exclusively identify the input services, which are used for taxable output services - It cannot be said that following procedure under Rule 6(2) is not maintenance of separate account of common input services. Rule 6(2) specifically covers only such situation. Non-existence of provision for lapsing or reversal of credit, which was taken as per the provision of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that: - When the credit itself is not eligible because of this legal provision, the question of legal provision for lapsing or denial is of no consequence. We are fully aware of the statutory powers of the Tribunal as per section 86(7) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with section 35(C)(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. These powers cannot be used for review of any orders which are passed after due application of mind. There is no discernible mistake apparent from the record warranting interference in pursuance of this miscellaneous application. ROM application dismissed.
|