TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (12) TMI 858
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ard to applying of Works Contract Composition Scheme to the case of the Assessee, who is engaged in the works contract services of Supply and Installation of Electrical Equipments. 2. The relevant portion of the order of the learned Tribunal is given below for ready reference "7.3. Now we turn to the claim of appellant for the benefit of concessional rate of duty under Works Contract (Composition Scheme). The appellant has paid service tax availing the above construction contract definitely involves supply of materials such as cement and steel, such contracts are rightly classifiable under the works contract service. But the adjudicating authority has denied the benefit of composition scheme for the reason that the appellant has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....decision of the Tribunal was not brought to the notice of the Bench during the hearing. In the circumstances, we are of the view that there is no ground for modification of the final order already issued. Any such modification as prayed by the appellant would amount to review of the order already passed, which is not permissible under rectification of mistake application. Under ROM only such mistakes which are apparent from the record may be correct. 5. In the result, the ROM application is dismissed." 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the Assessee filed a writ petition before this Court, which was later on converted into the present C.M.A.No.2032 of 2019. Learned counsel for the Assessee Mr.Joseph Prabakar submitted that in order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en a pedantic approach and instead of rectifying the earlier order dated 01.06.2018, it has erred in rejecting the same vide order dated 07.08.2018. 5. Learned counsel for the Assessee brought to the notice of this Court the judgment of the learned Tribunal in the case of Vaishno Associates -Vs- CCE &ST, Jaipur [2018] VIL 217 cited supra, wherein the said Tribunal has held as under. "7. We have gone through Tribunal decision cited by the Ld.counsel for the assessee. In the case of ABL Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd (supra) where a similar issue was considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal observed in the above case as follows:- 6.3. Having viewed that the appellant have executed the new contract w.e.f.5-6-2007 and the activity ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection is absence of option exercised by the appellant before they started paying duty under the works contract. However, we find that as the appellant applied for registration under works contract, the same amount would amount to exercise of option in the absence of any format laid in the said rule for exercising said option. Similarly, we find favour in the appellant's contention that the restriction under Rule 3(3) of the said rules is for availing credit in respect of input and not input service." We have also seen Board's Circular and the judgment of Nagarjuna Construction (supra) relied upon by Revenue. The facts there are different because there the situations were that a single and same contract was in existence before 01-0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....larly in view of the view taken by the Tribunal in the case of Vaishno Associates -Vs- CCE &ST, Jaipur [2018] VIL 217 itself. 8. We may note here that the view of the Tribunal in the case of Vaishno Associates -Vs- CCE &ST, Jaipur [2018] VIL 217 at the Principal Bench of CESTAT at Delhi was delivered on 06.03.2018 before the order impugned in the present appeal was rendered in the case of the present Assessee on 01.06.2018 after about 3 months, but on 01.06.2018 apparently the Assessee’s counsel could not bring to the notice of the learned Tribunal at Chennai, the view of the Principal Bench of the Tribunal at Delhi in the case of Vaishno Associates -Vs- CCE &ST, Jaipur [2018] VIL 217. That is precisely why the Assessee filed a Rect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... deny the benefit of the Composition Scheme to the Assessee and therefore, the order of remand passed by the learned Tribunal on 01.06.2018 directing the Assessee to go for regular assessment instead of Composition Scheme merely because the option was not conveyed to the Department on the part of the Assessee in writing, even though the Revenue had not prescribed any format for the same, could not be a valid ground to deny the benefit to the Assessee. If a previously rendered judgment of the same Tribunal authored by the same Member was brought to the notice of the learned Tribunal by way of a Rectification Application, it was all the more duty of the learned Members of the Tribunal to have rectified their mistake in their order dated 01.06....