9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... BER Dr. J. Harish, AR For the Appellant Mr. M.S. Srinivasa, Advocate For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The applicant-assessee has filed an application for rectification of mistake under Section 35(2) of Central Excise Act, 1944 as made applicable to Service Tax in terms of Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. The applicant-assessee has further averred that this Tribunal vide Final Or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 84(4) of the Finance Act, 1944 can revise the decision or order passed by the adjudicating authority subordinate to him when the issues are pending before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals)/Hon'ble Tribunal and the Tribunal vide its Final order dated 10.10.2017 at para 6.1 while considering the said issue by taking recourse to Section 84(4) of the Act has observed that the revis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any intervention. Learned counsel further submitted that the final conclusion of the Tribunal is incorrect and this is a mistake apparent on record which may be corrected by allowing the present application. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR submitted that the present application is not required as there is no mistake apparent on the face of the record which needs to be corrected by way of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an apprehension that the final findings may not be misinterpreted by the department and in future may not raise the demand. In my view the apprehension is unfounded but still I clarify that the said final conclusion is only with regard to section 84(4) of the Finance Act. With this clarification, the ROM application is disposed of.
(Order was pronounced in Open Court on 27/6/2018) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
