9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 885X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amined by this Tribunal and it was held that the appellant would be liable to discharge service tax liability under the category of 'tour operator's charges' w.e.f. 10/09/2004. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the rectification application with regard to the confirmation of service tax demand on the bus reservation charges collected by the appellant in respect of the tours undertaken for the period prior to 01/06/2007. It is a settled position that in any ROM application, the mistake should be apparent on the face of the record. If the issue involves detailed reasoning or re-appreciation of evidence it would be beyond the scope of an ROM application and would amount to review of the order which is not permissible as hel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vious occasion also when the case was listed, none appeared for the appellant. Therefore, we take up the matter with the assistance of the learned Additional Commissioner (AR), appearing for the Revenue. 4. The learned (AR) submits that there is no error as contended by the appellant in the impugned order. The appellant was discharging service tax liability in respect of the same transaction for the amount collected under 'seat reservation charges' under 'tour operator service'. For the same tours undertaken, the appellant is also collecting bus reservation charges which were the subject matter of the impugned order and, therefore, this Tribunal has rightly confirmed service tax levy on the bus reservation charges treatin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interpretation or otherwise, for the mere delay or default in payment of service tax, penalty under Section 76 can be imposed and, therefore, the application fails on this count also. 7. It is a settled position that in any ROM application, the mistake should be apparent on the face of the record. If the issue involves detailed reasoning or re-appreciation of evidence it would be beyond the scope of an ROM application and would amount to review of the order which is not permissible as held by the apex Court in the case of RDC Concrete (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2011 (270) ELT 625 (SC)] and ACSU Ltd. [2003 (151) ELT 481 (SC)]. In the present application, what the appellant is seeking is review of the order by re-appreciation of the arguments whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
