9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 591X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Jai Kumar, Shri Kartik Jindal and Shri Ajinkaya Tiwari, Id. Advocates on behalf of the applicants as well as Shri G.R. Singh, Id. DR on behalf of the Revenue. 3. Ld. Advocate submitted as follows* (i) The appeal dealt with exemption granted from the purview of service tax on GTA service for agricultural produce as per Sl.No.21 of Notification No. 25/2012 dated 20.06.2012. He submitted that the main grievance of the applicant is that the order has been passed without consideration of the detailed written submission, which was given on 19.01.2018. He emphasized that during the course of arguments before the Bench, specific directions were given by the Bench to file written submissions on certain points and the written submissions were file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f appeal that "trees" were in fact purchased from farmers, which is against the view taken by the Tribunal in the said Final order. Finally, he submitted that ROM application may be allowed and the final order re-called. 4. Ld. DR on the other hand, submitted that ROM is not maintainable. He argued that the Tribunal has considered all the relevant facts before passing the order. He submitted that the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court is not applicable to the present case. In the said decision, the Hon'ble High court has considered a case, in which the Tribunal had passed the order in terms of the second proviso to Section 35 B which is an order passed in liminie, which is not the case before us. Accordingly, he prayed that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whether the judgment is correct or not. An error apparent on the face of the record means an error which strikes on mere looking and does not need long-drawn-out process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions. Such error should not require any extraneous matter to show its incorrectness. To put it differently, it should be so manifest and clear that no Court would permit it to remain on record. If the view accepted by the Court in the original judgment is one of the possible views, the case cannot be said to be covered by an error apparent on the face of the record." 7. 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 rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
