CESTAT error: Court remands for fresh consideration. Appellant successful.

The court found that the CESTAT's failure to consider the appellant's plea regarding the extended period of limitation constituted an error apparent on the face of the record. The court set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the CESTAT for fresh consideration of the rectification of mistake application. Both substantial questions of law were answered in favor of the appellant, leading to the appeal being allowed and disposed of accordingly.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Final order by the CESTAT, dated 20th March 2018, suffers from any error apparent on the face of the record.
2. Whether the CESTAT has wrongly dismissed the rectification of mistake application.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Error Apparent on the Face of the Record:
The appellant, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, challenged the CESTAT's final order dated 20th March 2018, which confirmed the demand of Service Tax along with interest and penalties. The appellant argued that the CESTAT failed to consider their plea regarding the extended period of limitation, which had been raised at various stages of the adjudication process. The appellant submitted detailed instances where this plea was raised, indicating that the plea was not new and should have been considered by the CESTAT.

The court referred to the judgment of the Honorable Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai v. Bharat Bijlee Ltd. 2006 (198) E.L.T. 489 (SC), which held that failure to consider material evidence present on the record amounts to a mistake apparent on the face of the record. Based on this precedent, the court concluded that the CESTAT's failure to consider the appellant's plea regarding the extended period of limitation constituted an error apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, the first substantial question of law was answered in the affirmative.

2. Dismissal of the Rectification of Mistake Application:
The appellant filed a rectification of mistake application under Section 35C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which was dismissed by the CESTAT on 8th March 2019. The CESTAT held that the scope of rectification of mistake was limited and that the appellant was essentially seeking a review of the order under the guise of rectification. The appellant contended that their plea regarding the extended period of limitation had been raised multiple times and should have been considered.

The court noted that the CESTAT had erred in dismissing the rectification of mistake application without considering the appellant's plea regarding the extended period of limitation. The court emphasized that the failure to consider this plea, which was raised at various stages, amounted to a mistake apparent on the face of the record. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the CESTAT for fresh consideration of the rectification of mistake application in accordance with the law.

Conclusion:
Both substantial questions of law were answered in favor of the appellant. The order passed by the CESTAT on 8th March 2019 was quashed and set aside. The matter was remanded back to the CESTAT, New Delhi, for fresh consideration of the rectification of mistake application. The appeal was allowed and disposed of accordingly.

---