2021 (1) TMI 567

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r needs to be corrected and effect of the written submission dated 14/09/2020 and the judgments cited therein may be given and, accordingly, the order may be corrected. HELD THAT:- All the judgments are not relevant on the line of discussion and finding given in the final order dated 22.092020. Therefore, it cannot be said that submission of the learned Authorised Representative made at the time of hearing was not considered. The judgments cited in the order at para 5 may be replaced with the aforesaid judgments. With this the mistake apparent on record in the order dated 22/09/2020 stands corrected - Application allowed.
HON'BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL), MR. RAMESH NAIR AND HON'BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL), MR. RAJU Shri K.I. Vyas, Advocate .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... fully considered submission made by both the sides. We find that the Authorised Representative, Shri H.K. Jain, appeared for hearing on 15.09.2020 and argued his written submission dated 14.09.2020 and cited the following judgments: 1. Indian National Shipowners Association vs. Union of India 2009 (13) STR 235 (Bom.) 2. Principal CST vs RR Global Enterprises P Ltd. 2016 (45) STR 5 (A.P.) 3. Orchev Pharma P Ltd. vs CCE, Rajkot 2013 (32) STR 477 4. Max Tech Oil Gas Services P Ltd. vs Commissioner 2017 (52) STR J258 (SC) 5. Kala Sagar vs. CST, Mumbai -II 2015 (38) STR 1017 (Tri- Mum) 6. Board of Control for Cricket in India vs. CST, Mumbai 2019 (29) GSTL 304 (Tri- Mumbai) Though, we have considered all these above judgments at the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... oner, (5) Kala Sagar vs. CST, Mumbai -II, (6) Board of Control for Cricket in India vs. CST, Mumbai: In all these cases, the issue was decided on Revenue Neutrality whereas in the present case no finding was given on Revenue Neutrality. Therefore, decision was taken on the facts of the present case. Accordingly, these judgments are also not applicable. 5. In view of our above discussion, it is clear that all the above judgments are not relevant on the line of discussion and finding given in the final order dated 22.092020. Therefore, it cannot be said that submission of the learned Authorised Representative made at the time of hearing was not considered. 6. In view of above, the judgments cited in the order at para 5 may be replaced with .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X