Error apparent on record: unaddressed limitation ground and inconsistent Cenvat credit findings were corrected in rectification.

Omission to decide a limitation ground specifically raised in the appeal, where the record already showed invocation of the extended period and allegations of suppression with intent to evade tax, was treated as an error apparent on the face of the record and corrected in rectification. The operative order was also aligned with its own findings on Cenvat credit: where the earlier decision had accepted that OXE, HDPE, batteries and ACs for server rooms were inputs used for output services, the final dismissal could not stand unchanged. Rectification was therefore allowed in part, granting consequential credit relief on the accepted inputs, while the audit-related objection was rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the omission to deal with the limitation challenge in the earlier final order constituted an error apparent on the face of the record; (ii) whether the earlier order required modification on the issue of entitlement to Cenvat credit on ACs for server rooms and related inputs.

Issue (i): Whether the omission to deal with the limitation challenge in the earlier final order constituted an error apparent on the face of the record.

Analysis: The application for rectification could not succeed on the ground relating to audit, as no concrete basis establishing any apparent mistake was shown. However, the limitation ground had been raised in the appeal and had not been dealt with in the earlier order. Since the show cause notice invoked the extended period under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, and the adjudication had proceeded on findings of suppression of facts with intent to evade tax, the omission to record a finding on limitation was treated as an error apparent on the record and required correction.

Conclusion: The omission on limitation was held to be an error apparent on the record and was rectified against the Revenue's objection.

Issue (ii): Whether the earlier order required modification on the issue of entitlement to Cenvat credit on ACs for server rooms and related inputs.

Analysis: The earlier order had accepted that OXE, HDPE, batteries and ACs for server rooms were inputs used for providing output services, but the final operative part still dismissed the appeal in full. The record of the original adjudication showed that the server-room ACs had also not been denied as inputs. The final order was therefore inconsistent with the findings already recorded and had to be corrected so that the appellant would receive the consequential credit benefit on the accepted inputs.

Conclusion: The order was modified to grant partial relief and allow consequential Cenvat credit benefit on the accepted inputs.

Final Conclusion: The rectification application succeeded only in part, with the earlier order being corrected on limitation and credit entitlement, while the remaining grievance regarding audit was not accepted.

Ratio Decidendi: An omission to decide a ground specifically raised in the appeal, where the record already contains the necessary material, constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record and may be rectified; an operative order must also conform to its own findings on entitlement to credit.

---