Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2014 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (5) TMI 341 - CESTAT MUMBAIModification of the stay order - Previous order passed for pre deposit - Held that:- It is a settled decision in law that the Tribunal has no power to review its own order, however, modification of the order can be asked in the event of “change in circumstances” as held in Baron International Ltd. case cited [2003 (9) TMI 97 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY] relied upon by the Revenue. Therefore, the only question to be decided is whether there is a change in circumstances in the present case or not. The order of this Tribunal in the case of P. Gautam & Co. cited [2011 (9) TMI 392 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD] after the pronouncements of the impugned order dated 19.08.2011. In the said order, this Tribunal held that discounts and incentives received from the advertising agency cannot be included in the value of taxable services under the category of "Business Auxiliary Service‟. Further, this Tribunal in the case of Group M Media India Ltd. [2012 (7) TMI 631 - CESTAT, MUMBAI], while considering the stay application, also followed the ratio laid down in the P. Gautam & Co. cited [2011 (9) TMI 392 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD] and granted waiver from pre – deposit of dues adjudged. The Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Amar Food Products cited supra has held that even a reference to a Larger Bench on a question of law would amount to “change in circumstance”. If that be so, a decision interpreting the law would certainly amount to change in circumstance, if such interpretation came about after passing of the impugned order. Thus, in our view there is a change in circumstances in the instant case and the law has been interpreted in favour of the appellants and against the revenue - Modification allowed.
|