9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 508X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... NO: ST/ROM/85759/2018 IN APPEAL NO: ST/85506/2014 - M/86324/2018 - Dated:- 20-12-2018 - Shri Ajay Sharma, Member (Judicial) And Shri P. Anjani Kumar, Member (Technical) Appellant :- Shri Mehul Jiwani, CA Respondent :- Shri M.P. Damle, Assistant Commissioner ORDER Per: P. Anjani Kumar This application for ROM is directed against the CESTAT final order A/91424/2017 dated 07.12.2017 in appeal no. ST/85506/2017. 2. The learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that there were three issues involved in that appeal no.; I. Sale of sim cards. In this regard he submitted that Hon ble Supreme Court in the case India Mobile Communication 2011(8) TMI 3(SC) held that service tax is payable on the value of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he services of renting of equipment as a taxable service under business auxiliary service therefore, the demand was also liable to be set aside. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellants relied upon the following case laws to elaborate the circumstances under which ROM can be entertained by the Tribunal; Index M/s. Idea Cellular Limited Sr. No Description Pg. No. 1 Dewsoft Overseas Pvt. Ltd. 2016 (44) S.T.R. 597 (Tri. Del.) 1-2A 2 Roots Multiclean Ltd 2016 (336) E.L.T. 25 (Mad.) 3-6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We find that to this extent there is a mistake apparent on record. Having held that penalty is not imposable, it cannot be held that penalty under Section 78 would be restricted to the extent of confirmation of demand. Regarding the other submissions of the Appellant about granting the come duty benefit or treating the VAT paid as service tax we find that the Tribunal as not discuss the same in the impugned order therefore, we find the same should be discussed at this juncture. We refrain to pass any order in this regard. 5.1 Regarding the submissions in respect of service tax payable on the infrastructure facilities provided by the Appellants to other service providers we find that the impugned order in Para 6.2 has categorically held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
