Rectification application for denied CENVAT credit dismissed on pecuniary jurisdiction grounds.

The Tribunal dismissed the application seeking rectification of a final order that denied CENVAT credit on gardening, courier, and security services. The applicant's argument based on a previous judgment supporting eligibility for gardening services credit was not considered, leading to the dismissal of the appeal on pecuniary jurisdiction grounds. The bench, exercising discretion under Section 35B(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, found no error on record and upheld the original decision, resulting in the dismissal of the rectification application.

---

---

Issues: Rectification of mistake in final order regarding denial of CENVAT credit on gardening, courier, and security services.

In this case, the applicant filed an application seeking rectification of mistake in the final order dated 14/08/2017, where the Tribunal dismissed the appeal on pecuniary jurisdiction. The applicant's counsel argued that lower authorities denied CENVAT credit on services like gardening, courier, and security, citing them as not related to the manufacturing process. The counsel pointed out a previous judgment where CENVAT credit for gardening services was deemed eligible. However, the Tribunal's order did not consider this precedent, leading to an alleged error on the face of the records. The applicant requested the recall of the final order for a fresh hearing.

Upon reviewing the submissions and records, it was noted that the final order was passed by the bench at the admission stage. The amount involved in the appeal was 40,527/-. The appellant, represented by a Jr. Manager, did not indicate to the bench that the issue was of a recurring nature. The bench, under the discretion granted by Section 35B(l) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, decided not to maintain the appeal. The Tribunal found no error apparent on the face of the records and dismissed the application accordingly.

---