2019 (8) TMI 1652

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ication of mistake claimed to be apparent from the record in final order no. A/3472/15 dated 20th October 2015 disposing of appeal no. ST/268/08 filed against order-in-original no. 23/STC/BR/08-09 dated 24th September 2008 of Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai. This order was impugned before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in pursuance of the appellate jurisdiction conferred by section 35G of Central Excise Act, 1944, as applied to Finance Act, 1944, but withdrawn thereafter for seeking this remedy. 2. Before we proceed to record the submissions of Learned Counsel for the applicant, we must express our anguish at the manner in which the applicant has couched the contents of the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in an attempt to....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o propositions and stated to have been canvassed. It is stated that both propositions were indeed canvassed and of law. 2. We informed Mr. Raichandani that it is well-settled that it is not for this Court to guess as to how the assessee proceeded, what points the assessee's representative pressed and what was given up and whether at all the Tribunal failed to take any of them into consideration or omitted to make a reference to them. The remedy of the aggrieved litigants and by the above approach is to initially move the Tribunal and seek a rectification of the alleged mistake occurring in the order of the Tribunal. 3. On our expressing this view, Mr. Raichandani fairly states that he would not press the appeal but move an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., was a consequence of non-discharge of tax liability. That it was made good in the course of investigations is not acceptable as restitution for having failed, in the first instance, to deposit tax collected from recipients of service. Any dispute over liability to discharge any indirect tax is acknowledged as the right of an appellant who has, either owing to inability or consciously, not passed on the burden of such tax to the recipient. Having collected the tax, any dispute, while it may not be discountenanced, is questionable when the obligation to deposit that tax with the exchequer has been observed in its breach. 7. The sole plea for relief is that the agent of the applicant, viz., the Consultant retained by them, was responsible....