2009 (2) TMI 179 - AT - Service Tax

Rectification of Mistake Application by the assessee non consideration of submission made by the tribunal - held that - The order in this case was reserved and the bench is not bound to indicate in advance the case laws relied upon by it through its own study of the matter. In fact the Ld. Advocate through the course of hearing has fairly conceded that the gist of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Prince Valves was mentioned during the course of hearing by the bench but the citation was not given and therefore the Ld. Counsel was duly made aware of what was going on in the mind of the bench. In view of this, we find that there is no error in our order which needs to be rectified and the applicant is merely seeking a review of our order rather than rectifying any mistake application rejected.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of mistake in the order regarding eligibility for SSI exemption, brand name ownership, limitation on demand, applicability of case laws, and fair chance to plead.

Analysis:
The case involved an application for rectification of mistake in the order related to the eligibility for Small Scale Industries (SSI) exemption, ownership of the brand name, limitation on demand, and the application of relevant case laws. The applicant argued that the Tribunal did not consider their submissions during the hearing, specifically regarding the ownership of the brand name, reliance on certain judgments, and the registration of the brand name with the Trade Mark Registry. They contended that the failure to obtain permission from the trademark authority did not render the transfer of the trademark ineffective. The applicant also highlighted the submission of documents and agreements supporting their ownership claim and the history of the brand name registration. The issue of divergent views on the availability of SSI exemption for the use of a foreign brand name was raised, citing a reference to a larger bench decision. The applicant further argued against the invocation of the extended period and penalty provisions due to the conflicting views.

The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, found that all the arguments presented by the applicants had been addressed in the order, and the findings were detailed in the relevant paragraphs. The Tribunal emphasized that it is not necessary to address each case individually and that the key aspects of the case, such as the agreement clauses and the effect of the deed of assignment, had been adequately considered. The Tribunal clarified that it was not obliged to disclose the case laws relied upon during the hearing, as long as the gist of the relevant legal principles was communicated. The Tribunal noted that the applicant's request for rectification appeared to be a review of the order rather than a correction of any mistake. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application for rectification, stating that there was no error in the original order that required rectification.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues raised by the applicant regarding SSI exemption, brand name ownership, limitation on demand, and the application of case laws. The Tribunal found that the original order adequately considered the submissions and there was no error warranting rectification. The decision was pronounced on 12-2-2009.