TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal denies modification request for service tax predeposit, grants additional compliance time.</h1> <h3>Sesa Sterlite Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirunelveli</h3> Sesa Sterlite Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirunelveli - TMI Issues:Application for modification of Tribunal's order for waiver of predeposit of service tax demand under reverse charge mechanism.Analysis:The Tribunal had directed the appellant to make a predeposit of Rs. 7 Crores within 8 weeks in response to a stay application for waiver of predeposit of Rs. 25,49,32,832 along with interest and penalty. The appellant contended that the services were rendered outside India and not liable for predeposit, citing letters from the Commissioner of Central Excise. The appellant also raised issues of revenue-neutrality and time bar, seeking a reduction in the predeposit amount or complete waiver based on various case laws. However, the Revenue opposed the contentions, stating that the Tribunal's order was justifiable and not subject to review. The Revenue argued that the appellant's reliance on new evidence obtained through RTI application was impermissible in a modification application. The Tribunal noted that it can only rectify mistakes apparent on record, and the appellant's request amounted to a review of the order, which is beyond the Tribunal's powers.The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court decision in CCE Vs RDC Concrete (India) Pvt. Ltd., emphasizing that re-appreciation of evidence by the Tribunal cannot be considered a rectification of mistake. The Tribunal also cited the Madras High Court decision in V. Ramakrishna Rao Vs CC Chennai, highlighting the limitations on the Tribunal's power to recall orders related to predeposit. The Tribunal concluded that there was no apparent mistake in its interim order to warrant a recall or modification. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the appellant's modification application but allowed an additional 4 weeks for compliance with the original order.In summary, the Tribunal upheld its original order for predeposit, emphasizing that the appellant's contentions did not establish a mistake apparent on record. The Tribunal cited relevant case laws to support its decision and clarified the limitations on its power to modify orders related to predeposit. The appellant was granted an extension to comply with the original order within the specified timeline.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
