2013 (9) TMI 1171

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....0477/WZB/AHD/2013, dated 15-4-2013 [2013 (32) S.T.R. 510 (Tri.-Ahmd.)]. 2. The final order dated 15-4-2013 was passed by this bench in bunch of appeals filed by the assessees against various orders-in-original. Since it is a common order, all errors which are sought to be rectified by the various applications for rectification of mistakes are also disposed of by a common order. 3. Ld. counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the following mistakes apparent on the record. (i)   That the impugned order is passed against various orders-in original and in the preamble order-in-original No. AHM-CEX-003-COM-024-12 is not mentioned. (ii)  The amount of duty liability confirmed on the appellant ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nbsp;   We find that there is an error in mentioning the amount in the paragraph No. 1.4 in our final order dated 15-4-2013 wherein in the last sentence we have recorded as under :- "Accordingly, four show cause notices were issued to the appellant demanding inadmissible Cenvat credit totalling Rs. 231,69,61,491/- which were confirmed vide four orders-in original. The appellant is in appeal against the orders-in original". We do find on the face of the record that there is an error, and accordingly we rectify the error in paragraph No. 1.4 and most specifically the last sentence as mentioned hereinabove. The last sentence will read as under :- "Accordingly, five show cause notices were issued to the appellant demanding inadm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aragraph No. 5.2 reads as under: - "5.2 - The learned Special Counsel also submitted that in respect of services rendered to the contractor by other service providers, Notification No. 12/2003 does not disallow credit of service tax on such input services and therefore only contractors could have availed the credit. Therefore in such cases if the contractors did not avail the credit, appellant cannot avail. We find ourselves in agreement with this submission. It cannot be said that in respect of input services received by the contractors, appellant is eligible since those are not input services used for providing output service by the appellant but they are used for providing output service by the EPC contractors. It can be seen from ....