https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370278 The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's applications for rectification of mistake in the final order concerning the cum-duty benefit. The appellant's claim that the Tribunal erred in not allowing the cum-duty benefit while upholding the service tax demand was rejected. It was determined that the cum-duty benefit was not contested during the original appeal or before the Adjudicating Authority. The Tribunal clarified that rectification is limited to correcting errors apparent from the record and does not extend to debatable legal or factual issues, citing the Interscape case. Consequently, the original order was upheld. en-us Fri, 12 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Nov 2018 10:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370278 The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's applications for rectification of mistake in the final order concerning the cum-duty benefit. The appellant's claim that the Tribunal erred in not allowing the cum-duty benefit while upholding the service tax demand was rejected. It was determined that the cum-duty benefit was not contested during the original appeal or before the Adjudicating Authority. The Tribunal clarified that rectification is limited to correcting errors apparent from the record and does not extend to debatable legal or factual issues, citing the Interscape case. Consequently, the original order was upheld. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 12 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370278