https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329396 The Tribunal held that the Original Authority was bound to implement its earlier final order because there was no material showing that the order had been stayed or overruled. The earlier order had limited the demand to the normal limitation period, set aside penalties under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, and extended cum-tax valuation benefit, while the service tax had already been deposited during the appeal. Since the required computation to give effect to that order had not been carried out, the Tribunal exercised power under Rule 41 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982 and directed implementation within three months. en-us Mon, 13 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Jun 2016 18:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329396 The Tribunal held that the Original Authority was bound to implement its earlier final order because there was no material showing that the order had been stayed or overruled. The earlier order had limited the demand to the normal limitation period, set aside penalties under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, and extended cum-tax valuation benefit, while the service tax had already been deposited during the appeal. Since the required computation to give effect to that order had not been carried out, the Tribunal exercised power under Rule 41 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982 and directed implementation within three months. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 13 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329396