9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (11) TMI 363 - AT - Service TaxRectification of mistake - Decision given on incorrect judgment - Held that - though the Tribunal s final order relies upon the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Deepak Transport Bus Service vs. CCE, Pune - III (2012 (6) TMI 390 - CESTAT, Mumbai), this order though a stay order, is based on the judgment of Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of Secretary Federation of Bus Operator Association of Tamilnadu vs. Union of India (2001 (4) TMI 7 - HIGH COURT MADRAS) and also the judgment of Hon ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CCE, Chandigarh vs. Kuldeep Singh Gill (2010 (4) TMI 283 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT). The plea that the judgments of these High Courts are not applicable to the facts of this case is a point of law and not a point of mistake apparent from record and, hence, the same cannot be considered at this stage. Moreover, in pursuance of the final order, the matters have already been decided denovo by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the issue of eligibility of the appellants for exemption under Notification No. 1/2006-ST and 6/2005-ST and for this reason, at this stage the impugned order cannot be recalled - Rectification denied.
Issues:
Rectification of mistakes apparent from the record in the final order dated 25/04/13 based on judgments of the Tribunal and High Courts. Analysis: The Rom applications were filed seeking rectification of mistakes apparent from the final order dated 25/04/13, which dismissed the appeals of the appellants based on judgments of the Tribunal and High Courts. The appellants contended that the matter was disposed of incorrectly by relying on a stay order of the Tribunal and that the judgments of the High Courts cited were not applicable to their case. The consultant for the appellant argued for the recall of the order, highlighting the reliance on a stay order and the inapplicability of the High Court judgments. The authorized representative for the respondent opposed the Rom application, stating that matters regarding quantification of service tax demand had already been decided in denovo proceedings following the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal considered the submissions from both sides and examined the records. The Tribunal noted that the final order relied on a stay order of the Tribunal, which was based on judgments of the Hon'ble Madras High Court and Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. The argument that the High Court judgments were not applicable to the case was deemed a point of law, not a mistake apparent from the record. Additionally, the matters had already been decided denovo by the Commissioner (Appeals) concerning the eligibility of the appellants for exemption under specific notifications. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the Rom applications could not be entertained at this stage and dismissed them. The decision was based on the fact that the issues raised were points of law and had already been addressed in denovo proceedings, rendering the recall of the impugned order unnecessary.
|
