Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether rectification of the final order was warranted on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record in the Tribunal's treatment of the amendment relating to limitation and retrospective application of the service tax provision.
Analysis: Rectification is confined to patent mistakes such as typographical, arithmetical, calculation errors, or omission of an important fact, and cannot be used to reargue the case or seek a review of the decision. A mere difference of opinion with the view taken in the final order does not constitute an error apparent on the record. The proper remedy against such a grievance lies in appeal before a higher forum, not in ROM proceedings. The Tribunal also noted that the amendment to the service tax limitation provision was treated in the earlier order as procedural and not affecting vested rights, and therefore capable of retrospective application.
Conclusion: The ROM application was held to be without merit and was dismissed.
Final Conclusion: Rectification jurisdiction could not be invoked to seek reconsideration of the merits, and the earlier order was left undisturbed.
Ratio Decidendi: Rectification cannot be used as a substitute for appeal or review, and only a manifest error apparent on the record can be corrected in ROM proceedings.