2020 (1) TMI 505

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ugned Order-in-Original No. CHN-SCTAX-001-Com-61-2016-17 dated 15.12.2016 and vide impugned Order-in- Original No. CHN-SCTAX-COM-01-Com- -2017-18 dated 21.4.2017. 3. The petitioner was issued to show cause notice to show cause why the petitioner should not be made liable to pay service tax as the service provided by the petitioner was neither in the negative list nor exempted under Mega Exemption Notification No.25/2012 ST dated 20.6.2012. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that it is a multimodal transport service provider and that in terms of Circular No. 197/7/2016-SD dated 12.8.2016 it has been clarified that the service provided by the petitioner was not liable to tax. 5. The case was heard by the respondent and the petitione....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....CTAX-COM-01-Com--2017-18 dated 21.4.2017 also along with Order-in-Original No. CHN-SCTAX-001-Com-61-2016-17 dated 15.12.2016. This application to amend the prayer was allowed by an order of this court on 22.2.2018. 9. The respondent has rejected the application for rectification vide Order-in-Original No.CHN-SCTAX-COM-01-Com-2017-18 dated 21.4.2017 on the ground that the failure on the part of the consultant to furnish the original certificate did not warrant in order under section 74 of the Finance Act, 1994 for rectification of mistake In the counter filed on behalf of the respondent it is submitted that there is no error apparent of the face of record in the order passed originally on 15.12.2016 and therefore there was no ground to re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....12.2016 and the subsequent rejection of the application under section 74 of the Finance Act, 1994 vide Order-in-Original No. CHN-SCTAX-COM-01-Com- -2017-18 dated 21.4.2017 cannot be faulted. 13. The fact remains that the petitioner has given partial relief on the strength of the renewal is a certificate for the period after September 2014. Since there is a bona fide mistake and but for the non-filing of the original certificate of registration issued to the petitioner for the earlier period, the demand would not have been confirmed. I'm therefore convinced that the petitioner is entitled to the relief. 14. Merely because renewal certificate for the earlier period was not produced earlier cannot mean that the order cannot be rectifi....