Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2019 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 1494 - CESTAT MUMBAIRectification of Mistake - error apparent on the face of record or not - applicant herein had challenged the order of the Tribunal by recourse to the appellate jurisdiction of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay but, thereafter, sought permission for withdrawal with liberty to file appropriate proceedings before the Tribunal - HELD THAT:- The applicant highlights non-consideration of the purported conclusion of the adjudicating authority in paragraph no. 13 of the order impugned before the Tribunal. A more diligent reading of the order would make it apparent this formed part of the narration of the several stages that preceded the issue of, and contained in, the show cause notice. In fact, the adjudicating authority taking note of this and, very rightly assuming the onus for ascertainment of claim, implied in the adjustment of taxes, that the charged amounts had been returned, sought reports from the jurisdictional field formation. It was the conclusion arrived thereon that was challenged in the appeal of the respondent herein. That conclusion of the adjudicating authority was held to be incorrect by the Tribunal on application of provisions of Service Tax Rules, 1994 that, in the precedent decisions relied upon, were stressed as not amenable to inclusion of conditions beyond those stipulated therein. Any grievance with that finding is not mistake apparent on the record. The appeal before the Tribunal was that of the assessee and the statutory role assigned in appeal is that of confirming, modifying or annulling the decision appealed against based on the grounds raised in appeal and the relief sought. The Tribunal is not empowered to entertain any ground of appeal that was not agitated before it and the privilege of stipulating grounds of appeal remains only with the appellant - The applicant appears to entertain the belief that the appellate jurisdiction is no different from the review contemplated in section 129A of Customs Act, 1962 which is nothing but the superimposition of a preferred adjudication by the Committee of Chief Commissioners over the actual adjudication by the Commissioner. There are no grounds to conclude that mistake apparent on the record has occurred in the order of the Tribunal - application dismissed - decided against Revenue.
|