1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Tribunal denies appeal restoration despite error correction & representation, citing no justification for location-specific restoration.</h1> The tribunal rejected the application for restoration of appeal No. 14 of 2003, despite correcting an error in the previous order and specifying the duty ... - Issues:- Restoration of appeal for a specific location- Rejection of application for restorationRestoration of appeal for a specific location:In the case, two appeals related to the same appellant were decided through rejection. The appellants filed an application in September 2008 seeking restoration of appeal No. 14 of 2003, which pertained to Godhra, as they were only heard in appeal No. 15 of 2003 concerning their Bharuch operations. The advocate argued that the issue in both appeals was identical except for the amount of duty confirmed against them. However, the tribunal found no reason to re-call the previous order. It was acknowledged that both appeals concerned the same appellant, even though operations were conducted at different locations. The tribunal confirmed that the appellant was represented during the hearing and stated that interest is liable to be confirmed in cases of delayed demand of service tax. An error was noted in the previous order where the amount of duty involved was not specified. This mistake was rectified by specifying the duty amount of Rs. 7,53,858, which was initially missing after the mention of Rs. 65 thousand. Despite this correction, the tribunal rejected the application for restoration of appeal No. 14 of 2003.Rejection of application for restoration:The tribunal, after hearing the learned Deputy Registrar, made the decision not to re-call the previous order. The tribunal clarified that both appeals were related to the same appellant, even though operations were conducted at different places. It was emphasized that the appellant was present during the hearing, and the tribunal had already concluded that interest is to be confirmed in cases of delayed service tax demands. The tribunal corrected an error in the previous order by specifying the duty amount that was initially missing. Despite rectifying this mistake, the tribunal proceeded to reject the application for restoration filed by the applicant.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
