2017 (10) TMI 1187 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal rectifies error in service tax demand order due to incorrect calculations

The Tribunal acknowledged a mistake in the Final Order regarding service tax short payment, leading to the recall of the order. The appellant successfully ... Rectification of mistake - Held that: - the appellant have adequately explained and has also filed evidence before this Tribunal and that there is no actual short paid Service tax according to Service Tax Rule 6 stipulates that Service Tax is payable on the basis of actual receipts during the relevant period - there is a mistake of fact in the Final Order by not considering the documents on record being evidence in support of the contention that Service tax was not short paid by the appellant - ROM application allowed. Issues:Rectification of mistake in the final order regarding service tax short payment.Analysis:The judgment revolves around a Miscellaneous Application for Rectification of Mistake in Final Order No.52529/2015 dated 16/07/2015 concerning service tax short payment. The appellant contended that the Tribunal had not considered crucial evidence supporting their claim. The appellant filed an affidavit and a certificate from a Chartered Accountant to demonstrate that the demand was based on incorrect calculations. The evidence showed that the Service tax recoverable figure was linked to unrealized amounts from telephone subscribers, leading to a higher recoverable amount compared to the actual payment. The appellant successfully argued that there was no actual short paid service tax, as per Service Tax Rule 6, which mandates payment based on actual receipts during the relevant period.The Revenue, represented by the ld. A. R., relied on the Final Order and sought the dismissal of the Rectification of Mistake (ROM) Application. However, after considering the arguments from both sides and examining the evidence on record, the Tribunal acknowledged the mistake of fact in the Final Order. The Tribunal noted that similar demands for a subsequent period had been set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on comparable facts and circumstances. Consequently, the Tribunal recalled the Final Order, allowing the appeal of the appellant and setting aside the impugned Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad. The appellant was granted consequential benefits as per the law.In conclusion, the judgment highlights the importance of considering all evidence and facts in rectifying mistakes in final orders related to tax matters. The Tribunal's decision to recall the Final Order and allow the appellant's appeal showcases the significance of presenting substantial evidence to support claims and challenge erroneous decisions effectively.