TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 258X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2006, the appellant did not want to repeat the arguments on merits. The fact that they did contest on merits is evident from the appeal filed by them which gives detailed grounds for contesting the appeal on merits. Para 4 of the order is intended to state that, during the hearing their contention on merits were not sought to be repeated. - Application No. ST/MA(Ors.)95020/2015 In Appeal No.ST/151/2008 - Misc. Order No. M/5022/2015-WZB/STB - Dated:- 26-10-2015 - Mr. P.S. Pruthi, Member (Technical) And Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) For the Petitioner : Shri J.H. Motwani, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Sanjeev R. Nair, Examiner, (A.R.) ORDER Per : P.S. Pruthi Miscellaneous Application (MA) is filed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ide. The appellant filed appeal before the Hon ble High Court against confirmation of demand of service tax. In the High Court the Ld. Advocate for the respondent Revenue drew attention to Para 4 of the above said Tribunal order as per which the appellants only opposed the appeal of the Revenue as far as penalty is concerned. The High Court therefore directed that as the appellant had argued on a limited issue before the Tribunal, they would not entertain the appeal but granted two weeks time to enable the appellant to apply for appropriate clarification from the Tribunal. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant took us through the sequence of successive demands for different periods. He stated that since i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contentions of both sides. Paragraph 4 of the Tribunal Order dt. 26.3.2014 which was brought to the notice of the Honble High Court, is reproduced below for convenience. The appellants are only opposing the appeal of the Revenue whereby the Revenue wants to impose penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act. 6.1. We see from the history of the case that the appellant have continuously argued on merits in all three adjudication orders passed so far which relate to different periods. In respect of the first Order, the matter went upto the Tribunal and then to the High Court when the Hon ble High Court admitted the appellant s appeal on the question of law. Therefore it is highly improbable that the appellant would contest the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant have conceded the issue on merits. The same is true of the impugned order of the Tribunal dt. 26.3.2014. This indicates that there was no intention to deny the appellant a natural right to appeal in higher forums on merits in subsequent cases when the appeal against the first Order of Tribunal stands admitted in the High Court. 7. We cannot accept the contention of the Ld. AR that because there is no apparent mistake in the Tribunal order dt. 26.3.2014, therefore no clarification needs to be issued. The application is not filed as rectification of mistake application. The application is filed seeking justice in terms of Rule 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules. Rule 41 empowers the Tribunal to pass any order to secure the en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
