2015 (3) TMI 557

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....7.4.2005 and paid service tax of Rs. 22,79,812/- under reverse charge mechanism. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Indian National Ship Owners' Association (2009 (13) S.T.R 235 (Bom.)] held that there is no authority of law for service recipient to pay service tax. Revenue's appeal against the High Court's decision was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dt. 14.2.2009 [2010 (17) STR J57 (SC)]. After the apex court order, the appellants filed refund claim of service tax paid for the above period. The adjudicating authority rejected the claim as time-barred and the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal filed by the appellant against the Commissioner (Appeals) order. 3. Revenue filed appeal b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on the following case law :- 1)  Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs CCE Mumbai 2008 (10) S.T.R. 91 (Tri.-LB) 2) CC Chennai Vs Hinduja Foundries Ltd. 2013 (296) ELT 193 (Tri.-Chennai) 5. On the other hand, Ld. AR for Revenue submits that neither there is any error apparent on record nor any omission of facts in the Tribunals final order. The appellant in the name of ROM petition is seeking modification order. It is not an error or omission of facts. In the absence of any mistake/error apparent, the Tribunal has no power to review its own order. He relied on the following case law :- 1) CCE Vs Doaba Co-Op. Sugar Mills 1988 (37) ELT 478 (SC) 2) AC, Income Tax Vs Saurashtra kutchstock Exchange ltd. 2008 (230) ELT 385 (SC) 3) CCE Hyd....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....unconstitutional in the sense it was not a levy beyond the powers given by Constitution. This position is clear because after insertion of section 66A of the Act, now such tax is being collected without any successful challenge to the said section. Prior to 18-04-2006 when 66A was introduced the only issue was that the Rule under which the tax was collected was considered to be not authorized by provisions in Finance Act, 1994. So the levy has to considered only as "without authority of law" and not as "unconstitutional". So the decision of the Apex Court in para 70 in the case of Mafatalal Industries Ltd. (being the majority view) should apply. From the above order, I find that there appears to be no error apparent on the face of record....