9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1318X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rent Acts - The work contract service involved in the present case, the erection, commission and installation would not be leviable to service tax as demand was made prior to 01.06.2007. Matter remitted back to the Customs, Excise and Service Tax, Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, West Block No.2, New Delhi to decide it refresh - appeal allowed by way of remand. - CEA-107-2017 - - - Dated:- 17-4-2018 - P. K. Jaiswal And S. K. Awasthi, JJ. Shri S.Nema, learned senior counsel with Shri Gagan Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant Shri Amol Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent ORDER Heard. 1. This appeal is filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act,1944 against the order dated 29.03.2017 in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal on 29.03.2017 on the ground that no review of order can be done under the name of rectification of the mistake apparent on record as there is no provision under the Central Excise Act,1944, therefore, review is not maintainable and the same has been dismissed. 5. He has drawn our attention to the Sections 25 and 44 of the Act and law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. reported in (2008) 173 Taxman 322 (SC) and decision of division bench of Kerala High Court in the case of Kil Kotagiri Tea and Coffee Estates Co. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal reported in (1989) 42 Taxman 33 (Kerala) and full bench judgment of Punjab and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oresaid, so also the fact that there is a provision of Section 35EQ of the Central Excise Act,1944 for rectification of order and therefore, that the nomenclature of the application and order make no difference and prays that the aforesaid objection be ignored and matter be decided on merits. 11. On considering the aforesaid and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the full bench judgment of Punjab and Haryana and Kerala Bench, we accept the prayer of learned appellant and treat this appeal in time. 12. On merits it is not disputed by the learned counsel for the parties regarding the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
