TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 239X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The applicants/assessee have filed two applications namely, ST/ROM/40159/2019 and ST/ROM/40160/2019 in respect of Appeals ST/146/2011 ST/268/2011 respectively seeking rectification of mistake in respect of Final Order Nos.40251-40254/2019. 2. On behalf of the appellant, Ld. Counsel Ms. K. Nancy appeared and submitted that there are apparent errors on the face of record which needs to be rectified. She made oral and written submissions as under: i) The assessee had filed two appeals viz. ST/146/2011 and ST/268/2011 against the impugned Order-in-Original No.59 60/2010 dated 29.11.2010 passed by the adjudicating authority viz. Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai (respondent). ii) In term ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r No.40251-40254/2019 dt. 07.02.2019 passed by this Tribunal wherein in the order portion, the following is stated : 8. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order to the extent as below:- (a) Revenue s appeals No. ST/142-143/2011 are treated as allowed by way of remand. (b) Assessee s appeals No. ST/146 268/2011 are partly allowed in respect of reimbursable expenses and partly remanded in respect of service tax on GTA services. vi) After considering the rival arguments advanced, in para-5 of the said Final Order, the Tribunal has rendered the following findings : 5. After going through the facts as also the ratio of the Hon ble Supreme Court judg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against the above, Ld. Advocate pointed out that the entire service was rendered/consumed at SEZ and therefore the same was not exigible to service tax and that all the supporting evidences were filed before the lower authority. 7. We are unable to perceive any discussion on the contentions of the assessee as to providing service to SEZ or that appellant did or did not furnish any documents; nor that the appellant s contentions are correct or incorrect, we are therefore constrained to remand this issue back to the file of the adjudicating authority to pass a denovo adjudication order, after offering reasonable opportunity to the appellants and after considering all such supporting documents placed/to be placed by the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... behalf of Revenue, Ld. A.R Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy refutes the contentions of the applicant and submits that only for lack of supporting documents with regard to contentions of assessee that they were providing services to SEZ in respect of GTA services, the matter had been remanded specifically by the Tribunal. Hence there is no apparent error on the face of record. 4. Heard both sides and have gone through the facts of the case. 5.1 From the facts on record, we find that related assessee appeals ST/146 268/2011 had emanated out of the Order-in-Original No.59 60/2010 dt. 29.11.2010 against the adjudicating authority s confirmation of service tax demands of ₹ 10,44,079/- on CHA and GTA services, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve been correctly dismissed and the assessee appeals ST/146 268/2011 should have been partly allowed in respect of service tax demand of ₹ 98,238/-) relating to reimbursable expenses and partly remanded in respect of service tax demand of ₹ 9,45,841/- on GTA services. 6. Viewed in this light, we find merit in these ROM applications. There indeed is an inadvertent apparent error in para 8 (a) of Tribunal s Final Order that Revenue s appeals No. ST/142-143/2011 are treated as allowed by way of remand. . The correct wording of the said portion should have been as under : Revenue s appeals No. ST/142-143/2011 are dismissed Accordingly, Serial No. (a) of para-8 of Tribunal s F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
