COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. Vs. DCW LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application filed by the Revenue claims that there is a mistake apparent from the record, in the conclusive part of Final -Order No. 1484/05 dated 10 -11 -2005 [2006 (1) S.T.R. 298 (T)] passed by this Bench in Appeal No. S/88/2004. The applicant seeks rectification of the 'mistake'. Learned SDR has endeavored to expose an 'apparent mistake' from the final order by submitting that a charging provision for levy of Service tax on recipients of 'clearing and forwarding service' for the period beyond 16 -10 -98 is discernible from the definition of "person liable for paying the Service tax" introduced in the Service Tax Rules, 1994 with effect from 16 -10 -98 read with the amended definition of "assessee" introduced in the Finance Act, 1994 by the Finance Act, 1998 (vide Section 116). Learned Counsel for the respondents in the present application opposes this argument and submits that the applicant is yet to cite the charging provision under the Finance Act, 1994 in relation to levy of service tax from recipients of clearing and forwarding service for the period beyond 16 -10 -98. According to learned Counsel, there is no error whatsoever in the final order passed by this Bench.

(2.) I have considered the submissions and have gone through the relevant provisions of law once again. As rightly pointed out by learned Counsel, a provision under the Finance Act, 1994 is yet to be indicated by the Revenue for levy of service tax from recipients of clearing and forwarding service for any period subsequent to 16 -10 -98. Section 116 of the Finance Act, 1998 had introduced a provision in the Finance Act, 1994 for making recipients of clearing and forwarding service liable to pay Service tax for the specified period 16 -7 -97 to 16 -10 -98. No such provision was made for the subsequent period. The amended definition of 'assessee' in the Finance Act, 1994 cannot by itself, create tax liability for recipients of clearing and forwarding service for the period subsequent to 16 -10 -98, nor can any amended provision of the Service Tax Rules 1994 create such liability. It was in this view of the matter that the following finding was recorded in the final order:

(3.) THE application stands dismissed.