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

....) 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 15.05.2013 were decided, regarding payment of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....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. CCE-2007 (6) STR 148 (Tri.). He submitted that such argument ra....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 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 of law applicable at the time of issuance of show cause notice, he relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ibunal 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 given in the Final Order for each and every conclusion. 5. It may be mentioned that it is not necessary to discuss each and every a....