Remand order upheld where limitation and penalty were reserved for de novo adjudication after service-tax quantification.

A remand order was challenged on the ground that it did not separately address limitation, penalty and other ancillary matters. The Tribunal held that the earlier order had already decided the main issue and had sent the matter back for de novo consideration of the relevant service-tax questions and quantification on the basis of evidence and documents. Limitation and penalty were treated as matters to be examined in the subsequent adjudication after quantification, so their absence from the remand order did not constitute an apparent mistake. The rectification request was therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order remanding the matter contained any mistake apparent on the face of the record for not separately dealing with limitation, penalty, and similar ancillary matters.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the earlier order had already decided the main question and sent the matter back to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration on the relevant service-tax issues and for quantification of demand on the basis of evidence and documents. It held that other matters such as limitation and penalty would arise in the course of the de novo proceedings after quantification and would be dealt with at that stage. On that basis, no apparent error or omission was found in the remand order.

Conclusion: The alleged mistake was not established and the request for rectification was rejected.

---