TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 990X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as reflected in the Final Order only after cumulatively considering the statutory provisions, the findings of the Adjudicating Authority as well as the arguments placed. It is not required to discuss at length each and every argument advanced. The appellant through ROM has attempted the review of the Final Order already passed which is not permissible in the guise of rectification of mistake. ROM application dismissed. - ST/ROM/50468 ,50704 & 50447/2018 & ST/MISC/50526 & 50527/2018 Appeal No. ST/03087 & 03166/2012-DB - Misc Order No. 50646-50650/2018 - Dated:- 14-9-2018 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) and Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Sh. Amresh Jain, DR for the appellant Sh. B.L. Narsimhan, Advocate for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, the appellant is required to discharge Service Tax on reverse charge basis without making use of the Cenvat Credit account and once the tax is paid in cash, the appellant will be entitled to avail Cenvat Credit of such tax paid. He submitted that such finding was rendered without appreciating the statutory provisions properly. b. Cenvat Credit Rule 3 (4) (e) permits the Cenvat Credit to be utilized for payment of Service Tax on output service. In respect of Service Tax payable on reverse charge basis, appellant is a person liable to Service Tax in terms of Rule 2 (q) and he becomes a provider of taxable service under Rule 2(a) and consequently becomes output service provider under Rule 2 (p) of the CCR, 2004. In the absence of any sp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Tri.-LB). e. Finally Ld. Advocate submitted that the Final Order which has been passed without considering the statutory provisions properly and without considering binding precedents should be recalled and the appeal allowed. 4. The Ld. DR strongly opposed the arguments advanced by the Ld. Advocate and submitted: i. The Final Order has been passed only after taking note of all the written and oral arguments raised. ii. Adverting to the para 10 of the Final Order and the arguments advanced by the Ld. DR referred therein, he submitted that the arguments were made with reference to para 19.4 of the impugned order in which the various provisions of the Cenvat Credit Rules as well as the provisions of Taxation of Services (Provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Service Tax, payable on reverse charge basis is paid in cash. However, since GST has been implemented w.e.f. 01/07/2017, the Final Order has not been implemented in full. Hence the appellant seeks direction that the Tax Authorities may be directed to allow such credit of Service Tax paid under GST Regime. He also submitted that this Miscellaneous Petition will become infructuous if the ROM application argued above is allowed. 6. Heard both sides at length and perused the record. 7. The controversy is regarding the disallowance of the appeal filed by the assessee, on the question of payment of Service Tax, by making use of the Cenvat Credit account in respect of tax which became payable under Section 66A. It has been argued at length t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... while exercising certiorari jurisdiction. An error cannot be said to be apparent on the face of the record if one has to travel beyond the record to see whether the judgment is correct or not. An error apparent on the face of the record means an error which strikes on mere looking and does not need long-drawn-out process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions. Such error should not require any extraneous matter to show its incorrectness. To put it differently, it should be so manifest and clear that no Court would permit it to remain on record. If the view accepted by the Court in the original judgment is one of the possible views, the case cannot be said to be covered by an error apparent on the face of the rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
