In the entirety of the show cause notice there is not a single assertion proposing to levy and collect service tax on the basis of any specified taxable services allegedly rendered by the appellant except the several alternative taxable services speculated to have been provided.
Providing of first-aid facilities to the workers, whether in the factory or in mines is the requirement of the Factories Act, 1948 and also the Mines Act, 1952 and if a manufacturer wants to carry on manufacturing activities, he has to comply with the provisions of the Factories Act and the Mines Act.
In the case of Oswal Petrochemicals Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the statute does not provide any remedy by way of review. There are other decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to the effect that in the absence of specific statutory provision. Tribunal cannot exercise review powers and only rectification of mistake can be made when such mistake is apparent on the face of the record which must be an obvious mistake and not something which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning or where two opinions are possible.
It was opined in those orders that insofar as supplies of material are concerned, such materials shall not be liable to service tax because Finance Act, 1994 is not a Commodity Taxation Law. Contract covering taxable service have been directed to be taxed.
Following the earlier order to reduce the litigation at the grass root level first appellate order is set aside and we send the matter back to ld. Appellate Authority to re-examine the issue without insisting on pre-deposits by him. In the result, both stay application and appeal are disposed remanding the appeals to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the same in accordance with law.
Revenue agrees to grant an opportunity to the appellant to reduce the dispute at the grass root level. In view of the limited opportunity of rebuttals as above pleaded the matter is remanded to the learned Adjudicating Authority to re-examine the issue of input credit admissibility as stated above including the documents referred to in Para 5.2 of the first appellate order granting fair opportunity of defence to the appellant.
In this case appellant was allowed to operate the ropeway of Nagar Palika and such factual aspect called for testing by the Revenue Authorities with the provision of law under which the appellant was brought to tax. Section 65(105)(n) of the Act has taxing entry and meaning of the term Tour Operator is given by section 65(115) of the Act. Definition of Tour Operator” under section 65(115) states that any person engaged in the business, planning, scheduling, organizing or arranging tours by any mode of transport shall be Tour Operator.
Facts and circumstances of the case suggests that the appellant has adopted a novel way of splitting the consideration with nomenclature of reimbursement of expenses. Deliberate splitting is not possible to be ruled out when splitting is not intended by law. Once splitting is attributable to a motive, the appellant cannot get any shelter under the purview of law.
In the entire scenario, we note that admittedly, a wrong order got issued (as the mistake happened in the hands of Steno) without noticing the facts of the present case, the replacement of said order cannot be considered to be a review of the same. The entire order, which got issued was a mistake inasmuch as the same does not relate to the facts of the present case except that the reference of Appeal No. and impugned order-in-appeal match in the preamble to those in case under consideration making it look as if the present order relates to the appeal of M/s. Paramount Communication.
Vide stay order No.ST/S/177/12-Cus dated 8.2.2012 the appellant was directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 30 lakh. Subsequently, the matter came up for ascertaining compliance and as the appellant expressed his desire to file modification application, the matter was adjourned and listed on 20.7.2012.
