2018 (8) TMI 326

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Ms. Rachna Gupta, Member (Judicial) Sh. O.P. Agarwal, C.A. for the appellant Sh. Sanjay Jain, AR for the Respondent ORDER Per: V. Padmanabhan: These ROM applications have been filed in connection with the Final Order No. 57477 - 57479/2017 dated 25.10.2017. In the said order, the demand for service tax raised vide three show cause notices dated 12.10.2007, 20.06.2008 as well as 15.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... notice also covered the period 10.09.2004 to 31.03.2007 when Section 73(1)(a) was replaced with Section 73(1). He argued that the show cause notice not issued in accordance with the provisions of law at the time of its issuance, is not valid as held by the Tribunal in the following cases: i) Atma Steels Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE-1984 (17) ELT 331 (Tri) ii) Mahakoshal Bev. Pvt. Ltd. vs. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l order. (iii) Since the Tribunal have not discussed the above important grounds, the order may be recalled, since there is an error apparent and the benefits of the above decisions may be extended to the appellant. 3. Heard Shri Sanjay Jain, ld. AR for the Revenue. He submitted as follows: i) Ld. AR rebutted the arguments made by the appellant, on the question of provisions o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the appellant cannot be permitted to seek review of final order. 4. We have considered the submissions made by both sides. The Tribunal had considered all the arguments advanced by both sides before passing the final order and have taken note of all case laws cited by both sides. It is also seen that the Final Order is not passed in liminie or in any summary fashion. Detailed reasons have been ....