TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 834X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esh Nagori, A.R. (Addl.Commissioner) ORDER Heard both sides. 2. This Miscellaneous Application is filed by the Revenue, seeking rectification of mistake apparent on the face of record in the Final Order No.A/10332/2015 dt.16.04.2015. Ld. Authorised Representative for the Revenue submitted that the adjudication order confirmed recovery of wrong availment of CENVAT Credit on two counts, viz. service tax paid on the Goods Transport Agency(GTA) services and on Technical Assistance Services received by the Appellant from a foreign service provider. The present ROM Application is directed on the second issue that is availability of credit on the service tax paid against Technical Assistance Services. It is his contention that whil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C.E., Calcutta Vs Alnoori Tobacco Products - 2004 (170) ELT 135 (S.C.). 3. The learned Advocate Shri Willingdon Christian, on the other hand, submitted that the present order has been dictated in the presence of both the ld. Authorised Representative for the Revenue and also the Advocate for the Appellant. No such argument was made before this Tribunal. Further, he submits that the eligibility to CENVAT Credit in similar circumstances, interpreting Rule 5 of Taxation of Services (provided from outside Indian and received in India) Rules, 2006, has been considered by this Tribunal in Kansara Modler Ltd Vs CCE Jaipur-II - 2013 (32) STR 209 (Tri-Del). After analyzing the said provison, this Tribunal has held that CENVAT Credit could b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CE Jaipur-II (supra) and CENVAT Credit was held to be eligible. Prima facie, we are of the view that the issue is debatable and hence at this stage, this Tribunal cannot enter into such debate once the order was delivered, in view of the principle of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Belapur, Mumbai Vs RDC Concrete (India) P. Ltd (supra), which reads as under:- 21. This Court has decided in several cases that a mistake apparent on record must be an obvious and patent mistake and the mistake should not be such which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning. In the case of T.S. Balram v. M/s. Volkart Brothers (supra), this Court has already decided that power to rectify a mistake should be ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
