Rectification of mistake in refund disputes requires a clear patent error; unjust enrichment cannot be raised without evidence.

Rectification of mistake was refused because no patent error appeared on the record in relation to unjust enrichment. The Revenue had not produced documentary material before the Tribunal to show that service tax had been passed on, and the plea was not specifically raised for all refund claims; the existing record, including the Chartered Accountant's certificate and billing papers, had already been considered. Additional refund-implementation conditions were also rejected: the Revenue could not introduce fresh requirements such as further FIRCs and export invoices when those conditions were not part of the Tribunal's original direction. The refund direction remained operative on the basis that the service was treated as export.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the rectification of mistake application could be entertained on the ground that the Tribunal had omitted to consider the doctrine of unjust enrichment in the refund dispute. (ii) Whether the Revenue could impose additional conditions in its undertaking for implementation of the refund direction, including a fresh requirement to submit FIRCs and export invoices.

Issue (i): Whether the rectification of mistake application could be entertained on the ground that the Tribunal had omitted to consider the doctrine of unjust enrichment in the refund dispute.

Analysis: The record showed that the Revenue had not laid any documentary foundation before the Tribunal to establish that the incidence of service tax had been passed on so as to attract unjust enrichment. The plea was not urged in respect of all the refund claims, and a mere assertion that the point was not examined could not establish a patent error. The material placed also indicated that the lower appellate authority had already considered the documentary evidence, including the Chartered Accountant's certificate and billing records, while the Tribunal had treated the transaction as export of service. In such circumstances, the alleged omission did not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record.

Conclusion: The rectification application failed on the unjust enrichment ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the Revenue could impose additional conditions in its undertaking for implementation of the refund direction, including a fresh requirement to submit FIRCs and export invoices.

Analysis: The undertaking tendered by the Revenue introduced conditions that had not been imposed by the Tribunal when the matter was heard. The Revenue could state that any refund would remain subject to the result of proceedings it might independently initiate, but it could not add new preconditions for sanction of the refund that were not part of the Tribunal's direction. Since the relevant documents were already on record, reiteration of their production was unnecessary.

Conclusion: The added conditions in the undertaking were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal declined to rectify its earlier order, left the refund direction intact, and required implementation of the refund in accordance with its earlier view that the service qualified as export and the claimant remained entitled to refund.

Ratio Decidendi: A rectification application cannot succeed on a supposed omission unless a clear and patent error is shown from the record, and a plea of unjust enrichment cannot be accepted without being specifically urged and supported by evidence.

---