TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 567X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gments are not relevant on the line of discussion and finding given in the final order dated 22.092020. Therefore, it cannot be said that submission of the learned Authorised Representative made at the time of hearing was not considered. The judgments cited in the order at para 5 may be replaced with the aforesaid judgments. With this the mistake apparent on record in the order dated 22/09/2020 stands corrected - Application allowed. - Service Tax Appeal No. 10666 of 2014, 10273 of 2015, 10274 of 2015, 10275 of 2015, 10278 of 2015 - M/10001-10010/2021 - Dated:- 5-1-2021 - HON'BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL), MR. RAMESH NAIR AND HON'BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL), MR. RAJU Shri K.I. Vyas, Advocate for the Appellant Shri H.K. Jain, As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submission made by both the sides. We find that the Authorised Representative, Shri H.K. Jain, appeared for hearing on 15.09.2020 and argued his written submission dated 14.09.2020 and cited the following judgments: 1. Indian National Shipowners Association vs. Union of India 2009 (13) STR 235 (Bom.) 2. Principal CST vs RR Global Enterprises P Ltd. 2016 (45) STR 5 (A.P.) 3. Orchev Pharma P Ltd. vs CCE, Rajkot 2013 (32) STR 477 4. Max Tech Oil Gas Services P Ltd. vs Commissioner 2017 (52) STR J258 (SC) 5. Kala Sagar vs. CST, Mumbai II 2015 (38) STR 1017 (Tri- Mum) 6. Board of Control for Cricket in India vs. CST, Mumbai 2019 (29) GSTL 304 (Tri- Mumbai) Though, we have considered all these above judgments at the time of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner, (5) Kala Sagar vs. CST, Mumbai II, (6) Board of Control for Cricket in India vs. CST, Mumbai: In all these cases, the issue was decided on Revenue Neutrality whereas in the present case no finding was given on Revenue Neutrality. Therefore, decision was taken on the facts of the present case. Accordingly, these judgments are also not applicable. 5. In view of our above discussion, it is clear that all the above judgments are not relevant on the line of discussion and finding given in the final order dated 22.092020. Therefore, it cannot be said that submission of the learned Authorised Representative made at the time of hearing was not considered. 6. In view of above, the judgments cited in the order at para 5 may be replac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
