https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370954 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. en-us Wed, 14 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Nov 2018 06:37:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370954 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. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 14 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370954