9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 859 - AT - Service TaxRectification of mistake Application - Held that - After deciding the main issue of applicability of the service tax to the sub-contractor, remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to consider various other issues in quantifying the demand. On quantification of the demand in the de novo proceedings other issues would arise which would be addressed accordingly taking into consideration the submission of the appellant. Thus, there is no mistake apparent on the face of the order of this Tribunal - application seeking rectification of mistake is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Issues: Application seeking rectification of mistake on the order dated 30.10.2017
The judgment pertains to an application seeking rectification of a mistake in an order dated 30.10.2017 issued by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI. The main contention raised by the appellant was that while the Tribunal remanded the matter to the original authority regarding certain issues, such as provision of services in SEZ and denial of specific notifications, it failed to address other issues like limitation and penalty. The appellant argued that these ancillary issues should have been discussed or directions issued. On the other hand, the Revenue's representative contended that ancillary issues could only be taken up after quantification of the demand by the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal, in its analysis, found merit in the Revenue's argument. It noted that after deciding the main issue of the service tax applicability to the sub-contractor, the matter was remanded to consider various other issues during quantification of the demand. The Tribunal concluded that once the demand was quantified in de novo proceedings, other issues like limitation and penalty would naturally arise and be addressed accordingly based on the appellant's submissions. Therefore, the Tribunal held that there was no apparent mistake on the face of its order, dismissing the application seeking rectification of mistake as devoid of merit.
|
