9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1230X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es open. 3. Ld. Counsel for the applicant/appellant submits that hearing in the matter took place on 23.08.2016 and they submitted written submissions within three days i.e. on 26.08.2016 and the order was issued on 31.08.2016 whereas their contentions in the written submissions have not been considered. The applicant/Appellant also contended that while passing the subject order, the Tribunal has not considered on merits the earlier decision of the Single Member Bench of the Mumbai Bench of Tribunal in the case of Indian Oil Corporation vs. CST - 2015 (37) STR 575 (Tri. Mumbai) on which they relied upon. The ld. Counsel vehemently argued that on the said grounds, the Tribunal order dated 31.08.2016 should be recalle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l adjudicating authority or the first appellate authority had no opportunity to examine the case law, now submitted by the appellant with regard to limitation as well as merits. Hence, we find that this matter has to be remanded back to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellants. All issues are kept open. 5. Appeal is allowed by way of remand." 6. Further on perusal of the order, it is also seen that at Para 3 of the said order it is mentioned that Ld. Advocate appearing for the applicant/ appellant had submitted that the issue is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax vs. ITC Hotels Limited - 2012 (27) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng drawn process of reasoning. In the case of T.S. Balram v. M/s. Volkart Brothers (supra), this Court has already decided that power to rectify a mistake should be exercised when the mistake is a patent one and should be quite obvious. As stated hereinabove, the mistake cannot be such which can be ascertained by a long drawn process of reasoning. Similarly, this Court has decided in ITO v. Ashok Textiles, 41 ITR 732 that while rectifying a mistake, an erroneous view of law or a debatable point cannot be decided. Moreover, incorrect application of law can also not be corrected." 8. In view of the above, we do not find any merits on the ROM application filed by the applicants. ROM application is dismissed. (Order dictated and p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
