TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 1441
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ltaf (Asstt.Commr.) (A.R.) for the Revenue ORDER Per Mrs. Archana Wadhwa: After hearing both sides duly represented by Shri Dharmendra Srivastava (C.A.) for the Appellant and Shri Mohd. Altaf (Asstt.Commr.) (A.R.) for the Revenue, we find that a demand of Service Tax to the tune of Rs. 7,62,645/- under the category of "Renting of Immovable Property" was confirmed by the Joint Commissioner, Ce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Finance Act empowered him only to rectify such mistake which are apparent on the face of the records. Inasmuch as the appellant's claim in the said Rectification of Mistake application was for granting cum-tax benefit and thus to re-quantify the demand by treating the entire consideration as cum-tax, the same was not falling within the ambit of mistake apparent on the face of the records. He a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ir claim of treating the entire consideration as cum-tax and to extend the benefit and to reduce the demand confirmation. We fully agree with the lower authorities that section 74 of the Finance Act only authorizes the adjudicating authority to rectify such mistakes, which are apparent on the face of the records. The assessee's claim of cum-duty cannot be considered to be a mistake apparent on th....