9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 1388 - AT - Service TaxApplication for Modification / Rectification of mistake in the stay order - it was contended that services were rendered outside India and no part of the service was performed in India. Therefore, he submits that they are not liable for predeposit and also pleaded for revenue-neutrality as they are entitled for the entire credit of service tax paid under reverse charge. - Held that - Tribunal can only rectify any mistake apparent on record in the said order and in this case there is no such mistake brought out by the appellant but only seeking to revisit the facts and findings of this Tribunal order 2015 (8) TMI 958 - CESTAT CHENNAI Which amounts to review of the order and there is no powers vested with Tribunal to review its own order. Any decision on debatable point of law cannot be treated as mistake apparent from record. The ratio of the Apex court decisions 2002 (12) TMI 87 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA and Madras High Court decisions 2010 (12) TMI 698 - MADRAS HIGH COURT are directly applicable to the facts of the present case. In view of the forgoing discussions and by respectfully following the Apex Court and High Court decisions, we do not find any apparent and manifest mistake in the Tribunal s interim order so as to exercise the powers to recall or modify the Misc order 2015 (8) TMI 958 - CESTAT CHENNAI - Decided against assessee.
Issues:
Application for modification of Tribunal's order for waiver of predeposit of service tax demand under reverse charge mechanism. Analysis: The Tribunal had directed the appellant to make a predeposit of Rs. 7 Crores within 8 weeks in response to a stay application for waiver of predeposit of Rs. 25,49,32,832 along with interest and penalty. The appellant contended that the services were rendered outside India and not liable for predeposit, citing letters from the Commissioner of Central Excise. The appellant also raised issues of revenue-neutrality and time bar, seeking a reduction in the predeposit amount or complete waiver based on various case laws. However, the Revenue opposed the contentions, stating that the Tribunal's order was justifiable and not subject to review. The Revenue argued that the appellant's reliance on new evidence obtained through RTI application was impermissible in a modification application. The Tribunal noted that it can only rectify mistakes apparent on record, and the appellant's request amounted to a review of the order, which is beyond the Tribunal's powers. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court decision in CCE Vs RDC Concrete (India) Pvt. Ltd., emphasizing that re-appreciation of evidence by the Tribunal cannot be considered a rectification of mistake. The Tribunal also cited the Madras High Court decision in V. Ramakrishna Rao Vs CC Chennai, highlighting the limitations on the Tribunal's power to recall orders related to predeposit. The Tribunal concluded that there was no apparent mistake in its interim order to warrant a recall or modification. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the appellant's modification application but allowed an additional 4 weeks for compliance with the original order. In summary, the Tribunal upheld its original order for predeposit, emphasizing that the appellant's contentions did not establish a mistake apparent on record. The Tribunal cited relevant case laws to support its decision and clarified the limitations on its power to modify orders related to predeposit. The appellant was granted an extension to comply with the original order within the specified timeline.
|
