2013 (10) TMI 859

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s Bench. 2. Learned advocate for applicants submits that while remanding the matter for considering the alternative claim of ISB, BIFT and IIRM for exemption under Notification No. 9/2003-ST dated 20.6.2003, the alternative claim made by the present applicants (appellants) were omitted. According to him, it was a mistake since same counsel/representative had appeared on behalf of the present applicants-appellants also and in the written submissions of the these appellants, alternative claim for exemption under Notification No. 9/2003-ST dated 20.6.2003 was made. He submits that this is an omission/mistake and therefore, in paragraph 22(iv) of the Final Order dated 31.7.2013, the present applicants names are to be included for consideration....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... We have considered the submissions made by both sides. In the order, no distinction has been made between ISB and IIRM on the one hand and ICFAI on the other hand. In the absence of any discussion and identification of difference between the activities of ISB and IIRM on the one hand and ICFAI on the other hand in the Final Order, at this stage, if we make a distinction in the nature of the institutions, in our opinion, it may amount to review of the order. If we will be going into an area where error/mistake is not apparent from records, it would emerge as a fresh consideration of the nature of the appellants which may not be correct to undertake. Once this point cannot be taken up by us because it may amount to review of the order, what ....