TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 990
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Heard Shri B L Narsimhan, Ld. Advocate on behalf of the assessee as well as Shri Amresh Jain, Ld. DR on behalf of the Revenue. 3. The Ld. Advocate submitted that the following two applications may be dismissed as withdrawn i.e. ST/ROM/50447/2018 & ST/MISC/50527/2018, since they have been filed by mistake. Further, he submitted that the ST/ROM/50526/2018, was filed requesting early hearing in the matter. In as much as all the applications already stand listed for decision today this Miscellaneous Application has become infructuous and may also be dismissed. The Ld. Advocate submitted that the appeal filed by the assessee broadly involved the following two issues:- i. Taxability of amounts outstanding as of 10/05/2008, from associated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of while passing the final order. c. The Ld. Advocate further submitted that several binding precedents in the form of case laws have not been taken into account and this constitutes an error apparent on record. The Tribunal in the case of Kansara Modler Ltd. V/s Commissioner, 2013 (32) STR 209 (Tri-Del) as well as the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner v. Aravind Fashions Ltd, 2012 (25) STR 583 (Kar) have already held that Cenvat Credit can be used for payment of Service Tax on reverse charge basis. These decisions have been followed in scores of other cases. d. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. 2008 (230) ELT 238 (SC) held the power of recti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th the same, the right course of action will be to challenge it in appeal. iv. By means of ROM application, the appellant cannot be allowed to seek review of the Final Order by advancing fresh arguments and citing case laws. v. Regarding the statutory provisions, he submitted that Rule 5 of the Taxation of Services Received, 2006 is to be given precedence over the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, since these rules specifically deals with service provided from outside India and received in India. vi. He also submitted that the arguments presently advanced by the Ld. Advocate as well as the case laws were never cited or argued at the time of hearing of the appeal. vii. He also relied on the following case laws:- 1. Vikramjit Si....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed only after taking note of all the written and oral arguments raised. It will not be proper to take the view that it has been passed summarily without considering the statutory provisions. The Tribunal has taken a view as reflected in the Final Order only after cumulatively considering the statutory provisions, the findings of the Adjudicating Authority as well as the arguments placed. It is not required to discuss at length each and every argument advanced. In any case it is to be recorded that the appeal was argued by a different counsel at the time of hearing of the appeal and the arguments in the précise form and detail along with case laws presently advanced were never made before the Bench. 8. Both sides have referred to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssible on any dispute and it will be improper for the present Bench to reopen the matter already decided by a different Bench as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vikramjit Singh V/s State of Madhya Pradesh (supra). 9. We are of the view that the appellant through ROM has attempted the review of the Final Order already passed which is not permissible in the guise of rectification of mistake. 10. In the result, we find no merit in the ROM Application and the same is dismissed 11. Through the Miscellaneous Application 50468/2018 the appellant has sought directions of the Tribunal in terms of Rule 41 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules 1982, for implementation of the Final Order. Vide the Final Order, the Tribunal ha....