Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (11) TMI 1230 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

2016 (11) TMI 1230 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD - TMI - ROM application - principles of natural justice - Held that: - a mistake apparent on record must be an obvious and patent mistake and the mistake should not be such which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning - power to rectify a mistake should be exercised when the mistake is a patent one and should be quite obvious - while rectifying a mistake, an erroneous view of law or a debatable point cannot be decided. - We do not find a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellants, keeping all the issues 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nly remanded the appeal to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision keeping the issues open. Further, he submits that both sides were heard extensively by the Bench before issuing the order and there is no injustice caused to the applicant/ appellant. He also contended that the applicant/ appellant by way of ROM application is trying to review the appeal which is not permitted by law. He further submits that there is no error apparent on the records. 5. On careful consideration of both side .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s and have rejected the refund claim only on limitation without going into merits of the case. Further, it is alleged that the said claimant had not submitted any evidence whatsoever to prove that the service tax claimed as refund has been paid by the said claimant. It is also observed that the original 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tels Limited - 2012 (27) STR 145 (Tri. Del.) and Indian Oil Corporation Limited vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai - 2015 (37) STR 575 (Tri. Mumbai). On the other hand, ld. Authorised Representative for Revenue had submitted that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Limited vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai (supra) was not brought to the notice of first appellate authority for consideration. Ld. Authorised Representative had also contended that since the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version