Petrofac International Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Petrofac International vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jun 30, 2006

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/43009

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/43009
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: M Ravindran
Decided On: Jun 30, 2006
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Petrofac International

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In: (2007)5STR68

Excerpt

.....on the refund amount was not allowed, is set aside and the department is directed to pay interest at the appropriate rate applicable to refund to the appellants for the period from the date of the order of the commissioner (appeals) till the date of refund to the appellants. the appeal is disposed of accordingly.4. it seems that there is a mistake apparent on the face of the record inasmuch as that the learned advocate appearing for the appellants did not ask for the interest for the period from the date of the allowance of appeal by the commissioner (appeals). in view of this, application for rectification of mistake apparent on the face of record, seems to be correct and is liable to be allowed. the final order portion of the order dated 5.1.06, instead of para 4, new rectified para 4 will read as under: 4. i have considered the submissions made by the appellants. i find that in view of the board's circular dated 8.12.2004 and the supreme court's decision in case of cce v. itc ltd. reported in 2005 (179) elt 15 (sc), the impugned order of the commissioner (appeals) under which interest on the refund amount was not allowed, is set aside and the department is directed to pay interest at the appropriate rate applicable to refund to the appellants for the period of delay beyond three months from the date of the order of the commissioner (appeals), till the date of refund to the appellants. the appeal is disposed of accordingly.5. accordingly, the application for rectification of mistake is allowed.

Full Judgment

1. This application for rectification of mistake is filed by department against the order dated 5.1.06. Learned Departmental Representative submits that the mistake is apparent on record in as much the interest which is granted to the appellant in the case is not according to the settled law or according to the Board's Circular. It is his submission that interest can be granted for delay, beyond three months from the date of Commissioner (Appeals) order but Tribunal in its order has granted the interest from the date of order of Commissioner (Appeals) till the date of refund.

2. Learned advocate submits that there is no mistake apparent on record. He relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Tide Water Oil Co. (India) Ltd. v. CCE, Ghaziabad and Krishna Ukltramarine and Chem. Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Chennai , for the proposition that rectification of mistake does not envisage rectification of an alleged error of judgment.

3. Considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records. I find that the Tribunal in its order dated 5.1.06 at paragraph 2 has recorded the pleadings made by the learned advocate which reads as under: 2. ...It was, therefore, pleaded that interest may be granted for the period of delay beyond three months from the date of order of the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing their appeal.

In the Final Order portion at paragraph 4, the Tribunal has held as under: 4. ... the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) under which interest on the refund amount was not allowed, is set aside and the Department is directed to pay interest at the appropriate rate applicable to refund to the appellants for the period from the date of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) till the date of refund to the appellants. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

4. It seems that there is a mistake apparent on the face of the record inasmuch as that the learned advocate appearing for the appellants did not ask for the interest for the period from the date of the allowance of appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals). In view of this, application for rectification of mistake apparent on the face of record, seems to be correct and is liable to be allowed. The final order portion of the order dated 5.1.06, instead of Para 4, new rectified Para 4 will read as under: 4. I have considered the submissions made by the appellants. I find that in view of the Board's Circular dated 8.12.2004 and the Supreme Court's decision in case of CCE v. ITC Ltd. reported in 2005 (179) ELT 15 (SC), the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) under which interest on the refund amount was not allowed, is set aside and the Department is directed to pay interest at the appropriate rate applicable to refund to the appellants for the period of delay beyond three months from the date of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), till the date of refund to the appellants. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

5. Accordingly, the application for rectification of mistake is allowed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Petrofac International vs Commissioner of Central Excise Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge M Ravindran