2015 (2) TMI 568 - AT - Service Tax

Modification of order - modification of this order on the ground that the appellant has a strong case and further nobody else is paying tax on tours organized for Hajj purpose. It was also submitted by the learned counsel that on 24.2.2014, it was the 7th death anniversary of counsel s mother and because of this reason an adjournment application was faxed to the Tribunal. It was also submitted that the case was not figuring in the website of CESTAT and they presumed that there was no sitting on 24.2.2014. On these grounds the modification of the stay order is sought. - Held that - It is settled law that this Tribunal has no power of review. Modification can be made only if there is an apparent error on the face of the order. In this case, no such error on the part of the Tribunal has been pointed out. Under the circumstances, the miscellaneous applications for modification of the order cannot be considered favourably and accordingly, the miscellaneous applications are rejected. - Modification denied.

Summary

Issues:
Stay application modification sought based on strong case and personal reasons - Tribunal's power of review and modification of orders.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT BANGALORE involved a case where the appellant had filed a miscellaneous application seeking modification of a previous order related to stay applications. The original order directed the appellant to deposit the entire adjudication dues before a specified date. The appellant sought modification of this order citing reasons such as having a strong case and the absence of tax payments by others for tours organized for Hajj purpose. Additionally, the appellant mentioned personal reasons, specifically the 7th death anniversary of the counsel's mother, as a basis for seeking the modification.

The Tribunal, in its analysis, emphasized that it does not possess the power of review and can only consider modification if there is an apparent error on the face of the order. The Tribunal highlighted that in this case, no such error on its part had been identified or pointed out by the appellant. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the miscellaneous applications for modification of the order could not be considered favorably and were subsequently rejected. The judgment underscored the principle that modification of orders by the Tribunal can only be done in the presence of a clear error on the face of the original order, which was not the case in this instance.

In summary, the judgment clarified the limitations of the Tribunal's power in terms of reviewing or modifying orders. It reaffirmed the principle that modifications can only be made in the presence of an apparent error on the face of the original order. The case highlighted the importance of adhering to established legal procedures and principles while seeking modifications to Tribunal orders, ensuring transparency and accountability in the legal process.