TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 1139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in case under consideration making it look as if the present order relates to the appeal of M/s. Paramount Communication. As such, it has to be concluded that the entire order is a mistake, requiring rectification of same. The point made out by learned AR that such rectification can be done only to small clerical mistake in the order, cannot be appreciated inasmuch as in the present case the entire order is a clerical mistake. The mistakes required to be rectified does not depend upon the length of said mistake or does not relate to one or two words in the order. When the entire order which got issued was not relatable to the matter under dispute, notwithstanding the reference numbers in the preamble of the same, it has to be held as i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly or otherwise, to a client 3. The present appellant is a manufacturer of excisable goods and is not engaged in the business of supply of manpower, though they were sharing the services of some of the office personnel with their sister concern. Here there is no case of supply of manpower by the appellant to the sister company because the employees concerned continued to work for the appellant also and arrangement in which certain employees work for two of sister concerns and the expenses of employees are shared, the manpower is not supplied by one company to other. The situation is that the personnel do the work of both the companies. The service is by the personnel to the two companies in question and not one company providing servic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ground that the said services cannot be held to be eligible cenvatable input services. 3. We find that the issue is no more res integra and stand decided by the following decisions :- CCE, Bangalore v. Bell Ceramics Ltd. [2012 (25) S.T.R. 428 (Kar.)] CCE, Bangalore-III v. Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd. [2011 (23) S.T.R. 444] 4. Inasmuch as both the issues are covered by the decisions of the Hon ble Court, respectfully following the same, we set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants. Stay petition as also appeal gets disposed of in the above manner. (ii) The above facts do not pertain to issue involved in the appeal No. S. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e matter : 1. Deva Metal Powders Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner Trade Tax, UP [2008 (221) E.L.T. 16 (S.C.) = 2008 (9) S.T.R. 113 (S.C.)]; 2. Asstt. Commr., Income Tax, Rajkot v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. [2008 (230) E.L.T. 385 (S.C.) = 2010 (18) S.T.R. 84 (S.C.)]; 3. Sunitadevi Singhania Hospital Trust v. Union of India [2009 (233) E.L.T. 295 (S.C.)]; 4. Commissioner of Sales Tax, UP v. Bharat Bone Mill [2007 (6) S.T.R. 167 (S.C.) = 2007 (210) E.L.T. 6 (S.C.)]; 5. Mustan Taherbhai v. Commissioner of Central Excise Customs [2011 (265) E.L.T. 161(S.C.)]; 6. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai v. Oswal Petrochemicals Ltd. [2010 (256) E.L.T. 190 (S.C.)]; 7. Commissioner of Centr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asmuch as the same does not relate to the facts of the present case except that the reference of Appeal No. and impugned order-in-appeal match in the preamble to those in case under consideration making it look as if the present order relates to the appeal of M/s. Paramount Communication. As such, it has to be concluded that the entire order is a mistake, requiring rectification of same. The point made out by learned AR that such rectification can be done only to small clerical mistake in the order, cannot be appreciated inasmuch as in the present case the entire order is a clerical mistake. The mistakes required to be rectified does not depend upon the length of said mistake or does not relate to one or two words in the order. When the ent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
