https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270466 The CESTAT exercised its Rule 41 power to clarify an earlier order where the record could suggest that the appellant had conceded the demand on merits. Reading the earlier and later proceedings together, the Tribunal found no indication of any concession on classification or taxability; the only point was that merits arguments were not repeated at the later hearing. Paragraph 4 of the earlier order was therefore clarified to reflect that the appellant had not abandoned its merits challenge, and the prior reference to omission of arguments was not to be read as a concession. en-us Mon, 26 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 May 2016 17:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270466 The CESTAT exercised its Rule 41 power to clarify an earlier order where the record could suggest that the appellant had conceded the demand on merits. Reading the earlier and later proceedings together, the Tribunal found no indication of any concession on classification or taxability; the only point was that merits arguments were not repeated at the later hearing. Paragraph 4 of the earlier order was therefore clarified to reflect that the appellant had not abandoned its merits challenge, and the prior reference to omission of arguments was not to be read as a concession. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 26 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270466