9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 326X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry fashion. Detailed reasons have been given in the Final Order for each and every conclusion - It may be mentioned that it is not necessary to discuss each and every argument of the appellant. Only the cumulative effect will have to be mentioned in the order. In the name of ROM review of the appeal is not permissible. ROM Application dismissed. - S.T. ROM Nos. 50395 -50397 of 2018 in S.T. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 20.06.2008 (normal period) were upheld. However, in respect of the demand for service tax made under show cause notice dated 15.05.2013, the demand was restricted to normal time limit. Penalties were set aside. 2. Arguing the grounds for ROM application, Id. C.A. representing the appellant Sh. O.P. Agarwal, submitted as under: (i) Regarding the show cause notice dated 12.10.2007, he sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y views have been taken by the various Benches of the Tribunal. Consequently, he submitted that the allegations of suppression cannot be made against the appellant as has been held by the Tribunal in the case of- i) Ajmer Zila Ex-Serviceman Welfare Cooperative Society Ltd. vs. CCE-2017 -TIOL-3288 (Tri. Del.). ii) Jaipur Ex-Servicemen Welfare Cooperative Society Ltd. vs.CCE-2015-TIOL-337-CEST ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng offence will be applicable. Accordingly, he pressed for rejecting the first ground raised by the appellant. ii) He also submitted that the decisions cited by the appellant have been considered by the Tribunal but distinguished. The Tribunal has relied on the decision of Jaipur Ex-Servicemen Welfare Cooperative Society. iii) Since all the arguments raised by the appellant have been conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In the name of ROM review of the appeal is not permissible as per the ratio laid down in the following cases. i. Prajatantra Prachar Samity vs CIT - 264 ITR 160 Orissa; ii. CIT vs McDowell Co Ltd.- 269 ITR 451 Karnataka; iii. M/s Bhagat Construction Store vs CIT, 197 Taxation 263 Guwahati; and iv. CIT vs Malwa Texturising (P) Ltd.- 292 ITR 488 (MP) 7. In view of the above, the R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
