2026 (3) TMI 439 - AT - Service Tax

Mistake apparent on record bars ROM relief where contemporaneous admissions and record evidence fix the factual characterisation.

Rectification under ROM requires a mistake apparent on the face of the record; where contemporaneous admissions and documentary record establish the ... Review/Rectification (ROM) application seeking correction of an alleged mistake apparent on record - clerical error - export of services - advance deposit of tax - classification of services as Business Auxiliary Services - rectification of tribunal order. Mistake apparent on record - classification of services as Business Auxiliary Services - Whether paragraph 8 of the Tribunal's Final Order contained a mistake apparent on record regarding classification and payment of service tax - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal found no mistake apparent on record. It relied on a letter from the appellant addressed to the Jurisdictional Superintendent admitting that the tax liability for May 2010 under Business Auxiliary Service, as reflected in ST-3 returns for April-Sept'2010, had been inadvertently shown as 'NIL' for export of services, and that the service tax had been deposited by way of the stated challan. The Tribunal treated the discrepancy as clerical and inadvertent and held that the materials did not support rectification of the order; authorities relied upon by the appellant were held distinguishable and inapplicable. [Paras 5, 6] The allegation of a mistake apparent on record in paragraph 8 is rejected and the ROM application is dismissed. Final Conclusion: The Review Application is dismissed; the Tribunal upheld its finding that the appellant had treated the relevant receipts as taxable under Business Auxiliary Services and that the claimed discrepancy was clerical and inadvertent, not a curable mistake apparent on the record. Issues: Whether the Review/Rectification (ROM) application seeking correction of an alleged mistake apparent on record in para 8 of Final Order No. 60582/2025 dated 30.05.2025 should be allowed to record that the appellant had treated the services as export of services and had declared zero tax in ST-3 returns instead of Business Auxiliary Services.Analysis: The Tribunal considered the appellant's claim that the entry in para 8 of the Final Order was factually incorrect and that the appellant had deposited tax as an advance under Rule 6(1A) of the Service Tax Rules and subsequently treated the supplies as export of services in ST-3 returns. The Tribunal examined the record, including a letter dated 17.05.2012 from the appellant to the Jurisdictional Superintendent, which expressly admitted that the tax liability for May 2010 under Business Auxiliary Service was reflected and that the omission of the CIN number and the declaration as 'NIL' under export of services was inadvertent and clerical. The Tribunal further assessed the applicability of cited authorities and found them distinguishable on facts. The Tribunal applied the principle that rectification under ROM requires a mistake apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to correct an erroneous view of law or debatable questions; it also treated the appellant's contemporaneous admission as decisive on the factual characterisation of the returns.Conclusion: The ROM application is dismissed; there is no mistake apparent on record in para 8 of the Final Order dated 30.05.2025, and the appellant's grounds for rectification are without merit.Ratio Decidendi: A review/rectification under the Tribunal's ROM jurisdiction is not warranted where contemporaneous admissions and record evidence demonstrate that an alleged discrepancy was a clerical or inadvertent matter and the applicant cannot reframe or overturn the factual characterisation recorded in the order by re-arguing the merits.