9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1388X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nterest and penalty. The Bench after considering the various submissions of both appellants and the Revenue and upon perusal of records, directed the appellant to make predeposit of Rs. 7 Crores within 8 weeks and to make compliance by 19/8/2015. The adjudicating authority confirmed the service tax demand on the service of underwriters in the category of Underwriter Service under reverse charge mechanism. 3. Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant reiterated the grounds made out in their modification application and submits that the services were rendered outside India and no part of the service was performed in India. Therefore, he submits that they are not liable for predeposit and also pleaded for revenue-neutrality as they are entitle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. Vs UOI 2006 (4) STR 81 (Del.) 4. In view of above decisions, he requested for modification of stay order for complete waiver of predeposit or reduction in amount of predeposit. 5. On the other hand, Ld. A.R vehemently opposed the appellants contentions and submits that appellant has not pointed out any mistake apparent on record in the said order. The appellant's entire ground is on the Tribunal's interim order. As per CESTAT Rules any rectification of mistake/defect which is apparent on face of record can only be considered for rectification whereas in this case appellant is seeking to re-appreciate the findings of the Tribunal's order which amounts to review of order which is not acceptable and impressible in law. He submits that Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le for service tax under reverse charge on the underwriter services and once again relied various case laws and produced correspondences of Commissioner of Central Excise letters dt.12.2.2013 and 23.3.2013 addressed to Chief Commissioner obtained through RTI and pleaded to modify and waive the predeposit ordered by this Tribunal in the above order. It is pertinent to state that the Tribunal can only rectify any mistake apparent on record in the said order and in this case there is no such mistake brought out by the appellant but only seeking to revisit the facts and findings of this Tribunal order dt.29.5.2015 Which amounts to review of the order and there is no powers vested with Tribunal to review its own order. 8. In this regard, the Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tant to ascertain value of the goods manufactured by the assessee was considered to be just and proper. However, after considering the submissions made in pursuance of the rectification application, the CESTAT came to a different conclusion to the effect that the assessee company and the buyer of the goods were not inter-connected companies. Different conclusions were arrived at by the CESTAT because it reappreciated the evidence in relation to common directors among the companies and inter se holding of shares by the companies. Re-appreciation of evidence on a debatable point cannot be said to be rectification of mistake apparent on record. ... ... ... 21. This Court has d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (2) of Customs Act and Rule 41 of CESTAT (Procedures) Rules, 1982 with regard to powers of CESTAT to recall the order in the predeposit order not challenged and also not complied. The relevant paragraphs of High Court order is reproduced as under :- 12. The learned counsel would, however, contend that under Rule 41 of the Appellate Tribunal [Procedure] Rules, the Appellate Tribunal has got power to entertain such applications. Rule 41 reads as follows :- Orders and 41. directions in certain cases. - The Tribunal may make such orders to give such directions as may be necessary or expedient to give effect or in relation to its orders to prevent abuse of its process or to secure the ends of justice. 13. In my considered opinion, this rule a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded dispensed with. Without doing so, it is not at all open for the petitioners to file applications subsequently under Section 129-B(2) of the Act to recall the ultimate orders passed by the appellate tribunal rejecting the appeals. In my considered opinion, as I have already stated, if once the order regarding pre-deposit of the demanded duty amount under Section 129-E of the Act is not complied with, the appellate tribunal has got no other power or discretion except to reject the appeals. That is what has been rightly done by the appellate tribunal in the instant cases. Therefore, after such orders have been passed, which have put a finality to the proceedings, it is not all open for the appellate tribunal to entertain the Applications u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
