9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (6) TMI 591 - AT - Service TaxRectification of Mistake - error apparent on the face of record - GTA service for transport of agricultural produce - ROM application has been filed against the decision in the case of CST, DEHRADUN VERSUS BALAJI ACTION BUILDWELL 2018 (2) TMI 1263 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - Held that - The decision in the case of CST, DEHRADUN VERSUS BALAJI ACTION BUILDWELL is a detailed speaking order and has been passed after taking note of all the written and oral arguments raised - The Hon ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot Vs. Stock Exchange Ltd, 2008 (9) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT has laid down the ratio as to what can be considered as an error apparent on the face of the record. When the ROM is considered in the light of the Apex Court s decision, it cannot be said that there is an error apparent on the face of record. In the name of ROM review of the appeal is not permissible - ROM application dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Consideration of detailed written submission in the final order. 2. Interpretation of exemption from service tax on GTA service for agricultural produce. 3. Applicability of the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court. 4. Maintainability of Review of Order on Merits (ROM). 5. Error apparent on the face of the record. 6. Cumulative effect of arguments in the order. 7. Permissibility of reviewing an appeal. Detailed Analysis: 1. The first issue revolves around the consideration of a detailed written submission in the final order. The appellant argued that the order was passed without considering the submission made on 19.01.2018, emphasizing the importance of the submission in defining "agricultural produce" for the exemption from service tax on GTA service. The appellant also highlighted the definitions of "plant" and "timber" from the Plant Quarantine Order 2003, which were not discussed in the final order. 2. The interpretation of exemption from service tax on GTA service for agricultural produce was a key point of contention. The appellant contended that the eucalyptus trees being transported fell within the definition of "agricultural produce," citing relevant statutory provisions. The appellant relied on Notification No. 25/2012 and argued that the Tribunal's order did not consider the points raised in the appeal adequately. 3. The appellant invoked the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Roots Multiclean Ltd. vs. CESTAT, Chennai, emphasizing that mistakes such as orders passed on inapplicable statutory provisions or points raised in appeal but not considered could be rectified by the Tribunal. The appellant sought reconsideration of the order based on these grounds. 4. The issue of the maintainability of Review of Order on Merits (ROM) was raised by the appellant. The appellant argued that the ROM application should be allowed as palpable mistakes were present, and points raised in the appeal were not considered, justifying a re-examination of the order by the Tribunal. 5. The Tribunal examined whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record, citing the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot vs. Stock Exchange Ltd. The Tribunal concluded that, based on this precedent, the ROM did not demonstrate an error apparent on the face of the record. 6. Considering the cumulative effect of arguments, the Tribunal referenced the case law of CIT vs. Karam C. Thappar, emphasizing that it is not necessary to discuss each argument individually, but rather the overall impact of the arguments in the order. 7. Finally, the Tribunal addressed the permissibility of reviewing an appeal, citing cases such as Prajatantra Prachar Samity vs. CIT and CIT vs. Malwa Texturising (P) Ltd. to establish that reviewing an appeal on merits is not permissible. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the ROM application, finding no merit in it. In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment delves into the nuances of considering written submissions, interpreting statutory provisions, applying legal precedents, and determining the permissibility of reviewing an appeal on merits. The decision underscores the importance of thorough consideration of arguments and adherence to legal principles in appellate proceedings.
|
