2008 (7) TMI 264 - AT - Service Tax

Appellant's Rectification Application Rejected for Lack of Mistakes

BHARTIBEN R. PATEL Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, VAPI

The Tribunal rejected the appellant's application for rectification of mistake regarding the service provided, determining that the original order was ... Application for rectification of mistake – ex-parte order - order which has been requested to be recalled is a very de tailed order and even though respondent was not represented, all the factors have been considered by tribunal while passing the order - there are no mistakes to rectify and the reasons advanced by the applicant if accepted would amount to review of the order - therefore, the application is rejected Issues: Rectification of mistake in the order passed by the Tribunal regarding the service provided being rent-a-cab or not.1. The appellant filed an application for rectification of mistake, claiming that the notice for the appeal hearing was received by the respondents on the same day as the hearing, preventing their consultant from attending. The appellant argued that the service provided was not rent-a-cab but on a per km basis, citing a Tribunal decision in a similar case. The appellant sought the recall of the final order for a fresh hearing.2. The Tribunal heard arguments from both sides. The appellant's advocate contended that the service was not rent-a-cab, relying on a previous Tribunal decision. The Departmental Representative (DR) argued that the order already considered all relevant factors, even in the absence of representation from the respondents, and did not require recall.3. Upon examination, the Tribunal found that the original order was detailed and had considered all factors, including the respondent's absence. It was noted that the original Adjudicating Authority's findings indicated that the payment made by the respondent was for rent-a-cab services, supported by a letter from M/s. GEB specifying the payment and vehicle details. The appellant's advocate failed to provide supporting case law within the specified time, weakening their argument for rectification.4. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant failed to establish a case for rectification, as no mistakes were found in the original order. Accepting the appellant's arguments would amount to a review of the order rather than rectification of a mistake apparent on the record. Consequently, the application for rectification was rejected.(Pronounced in Court on 23-7-2008)