https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363551 A remand order was challenged on the ground that it did not separately address limitation, penalty and other ancillary matters. The Tribunal held that the earlier order had already decided the main issue and had sent the matter back for de novo consideration of the relevant service-tax questions and quantification on the basis of evidence and documents. Limitation and penalty were treated as matters to be examined in the subsequent adjudication after quantification, so their absence from the remand order did not constitute an apparent mistake. The rectification request was therefore rejected. en-us Mon, 18 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 14 Jul 2018 07:48:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363551 A remand order was challenged on the ground that it did not separately address limitation, penalty and other ancillary matters. The Tribunal held that the earlier order had already decided the main issue and had sent the matter back for de novo consideration of the relevant service-tax questions and quantification on the basis of evidence and documents. Limitation and penalty were treated as matters to be examined in the subsequent adjudication after quantification, so their absence from the remand order did not constitute an apparent mistake. The rectification request was therefore rejected. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 18 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=363551