9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 326X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant None for respondent ORDER Per: Sanjiv Srivastava The Rectification of Mistake (ROM) Application has been filed by the revenue stating the following grounds: a) In Para 5.1 of the Tribunal's Order No A/87075/2018 dated 16.07.2018 reads as under: "5.1 Undisputedly in present case the respondents were providing the services under the category of "Erection Installation & Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... person, by any other person for transmission of electricity, from whole of the service taxes leviable thereon under section 66 of the said Finance Act." b) However, it appears that the subject of Notification No 11/2010-ST dated 27.02.2010 appearing in Para 5.1 of the Tribunal's order No A/87075/2018 dated 16.07.2018 is incorrect and subject Notification No 11/2010-ST dated 27.02.2010 (copy enc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otification No 11/2010-ST and extended benefit of Notification No 11/2010-ST and extended benefit of Notification No 11/2010 dated 27.02.2010 to the assessee which is in r/o services in relation to transmission of electricity to the assessee, when the assessee the assessee in question have provided services to M/s MSEDCL, a electricity distribution company. f) Therefore, there appears an apparent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... do not figure in the said decision. He accordingly argued for recall of the order. 3.1 We have considered the submissions made in the application and during the course of argument. 3.2 The text of notification as 11/2010-ST as available of the website of Central Board of Indirect Tax (Formerly Central Board of Excise and Customs) and also on the website indiabudget.gov.in, do not contain any sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions in para 8.0. The para 6.0 quoted in the said para is from the order of tribunal in case of "Commissioner of Central Excise Kolhapur vs G B Desai & Saurabh Construction [2018-TIOL-1656- CESTAT-MUM]". We accordingly amend the said reference to the case of M/s Kedar Constructions in para 8, with this citation. However we do not any reason for recall of the order on this account. 4.1 In view of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
