https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359207 A rectification-based challenge was treated as maintainable despite the limitation objection because a statutory rectification remedy existed and the earlier order had become erroneous after a later binding decision. Applying the settled principle that an error apparent on the face of the record may be corrected when the legal basis changes, the time-bar objection was rejected. On merits, the Court applied the settled rule that an indivisible works contract cannot be vivisected for tax purposes, so service tax could not be levied on the works contract demand for the period before 01.06.2007. The impugned orders were set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh decision in accordance with law. en-us Tue, 17 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Nov 2018 11:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359207 A rectification-based challenge was treated as maintainable despite the limitation objection because a statutory rectification remedy existed and the earlier order had become erroneous after a later binding decision. Applying the settled principle that an error apparent on the face of the record may be corrected when the legal basis changes, the time-bar objection was rejected. On merits, the Court applied the settled rule that an indivisible works contract cannot be vivisected for tax purposes, so service tax could not be levied on the works contract demand for the period before 01.06.2007. The impugned orders were set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh decision in accordance with law. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 17 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359207