https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332428 The Tribunal partially allowed the Rectification of Mistake (ROM) application by correcting the error in demand amounts under IPR and Franchisee Service. However, the issues regarding the consideration of facts, remand for de novo adjudication, and penalty leviable under Sections 76 and 77 were not rectified as they required further legal analysis beyond the scope of rectification. The judgment emphasized the need for a distinction between rectifiable mistakes and issues necessitating deeper legal scrutiny. en-us Thu, 11 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 Aug 2017 11:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332428 The Tribunal partially allowed the Rectification of Mistake (ROM) application by correcting the error in demand amounts under IPR and Franchisee Service. However, the issues regarding the consideration of facts, remand for de novo adjudication, and penalty leviable under Sections 76 and 77 were not rectified as they required further legal analysis beyond the scope of rectification. The judgment emphasized the need for a distinction between rectifiable mistakes and issues necessitating deeper legal scrutiny. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 11 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332428