2018 (8) TMI 171 - AT - Service Tax

Rectification of Mistake - appellant had made arguments on the ground of limitation also, the said argument appears to have been not considered - Held that - The Tribunal had considered all the arguments advanced by both sides before passing the final order. It appears that the Tribunal sustained the impugned order passed by the lower Authority in toto and dismissed the appeals. It is also seen that the Final Order is not passed in limini or in any summary fashion. Detailed reasons have been given in the Final Order for each and every conclusion. In the name of ROM review of the appeal is not permissible. ROM application dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Rectification of Mistake application regarding Service Tax demand upheld under 'Franchise Service', consideration of arguments on limitation, benefit of limitation extension, review of final order, permissibility of ROM review.

In this case, a Rectification of Mistake (RoM) application was filed regarding a Final Order upholding a Service Tax demand under the category of 'Franchise Service'. The appellant argued that their limitation argument was not considered, seeking a benefit similar to a previous Tribunal decision. The respondent contended that all arguments were considered, and the benefit of limitation cannot be extended through RoM. The Tribunal noted that detailed reasons were provided in the Final Order, and only the cumulative effect of arguments needed to be mentioned, following a legal precedent. The Tribunal emphasized that RoM cannot be used for a review, citing various legal cases. Ultimately, the RoM application was dismissed on 02.07.2018.

The appellant's main contention was the consideration of the limitation argument in connection with the Service Tax demand upheld under the 'Franchise Service' category. The appellant sought a benefit similar to a previous Tribunal decision where limitation was allowed, arguing that their case should be treated similarly. However, the respondent opposed this extension of benefit through RoM, highlighting the differences in facts between the present case and the cited decision. The Tribunal observed that all arguments were considered before passing the Final Order, emphasizing the need to mention only the cumulative effect of arguments as per legal precedent.

The Tribunal clarified that RoM cannot be used for a review of the final order, citing legal cases to support this position. It was noted that detailed reasons were provided in the Final Order, and the Tribunal's decision was not passed summarily. The Tribunal underscored that RoM applications should not be a means to seek a review of the appeal, as established by legal precedents. Consequently, the RoM application was dismissed on 02.07.2018, affirming the original decision upholding the Service Tax demand under the 'Franchise Service' category.