It is an accepted position that the Appellate Tribunal does not have any power to review its own orders under the provisions of the Act. The only power which the Tribunal possesses is to rectify any mistake in its own order which is apparent from the record.
In the instant case, there is no notification or official document suggesting that either the Interministerial Committee, or any other officer or agency was nominated to perform the duties of the Board (constituted under section 14 of the IDR Act), for purposes of approvals under section 10-B.
In this case, the service tax itself was concededly paid on 3.3.2009, i.e., before the show cause notice which was issued on 12.3.2009. The Order in Original confirmed the said demand for Rs. 3,54,37,986/- which had been so deposited.
Those who had paid tax as per the provisions and classification existing prior to 1-6-2007 and those who opted for payment of tax under the provisions of rule 3 ibid and paid tax after exercising the option belonged to different classes and, therefore, the impugned circular or the provisions of rule 3(3) ibid were not discriminatory.
Appellant’s signatory director of the applicant company was abroad during the time when the orders were received from the superintendent, and when the orders were served on the consultant. It is the submission of the ld. Counsel that the appellant company or the director was not aware of the receipt of the passing of the order.
Post service tax valuation rules, the said rules provides for inclusion of free material supplied by service recipients and has been directing the assessee in other cases to deposit some amount of the Service Tex liability for the period post service Tax valuation rules as a condition to hear and dispose the appeal.
It is not open to the petitioner to challenge the notice of attachment of immovable property as she is not the owner of the property as per her claim. If the notice has been wrongly issued to the petitioner, it is open to the petitioner to give a representation to the respondent authority setting out the details of the transaction that has taken place as above.
Facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the business of manufacturing electrical goods. It is having its one unit at Mandideep, District Raisen and another at Parwanoo, District Sonal (H.P.). The appellant’s unit at Mandideep is manufacturing electrical goods which are used in the distribution/transmission of power, while its Parwanoo unit is manufacturing electrical goods which are used in generation of the power.
Undisputedly the appellant had received input services viz. GTA and Business Auxiliary Service and used the same in or in relation to the manufacture and trading of Electric Meters. It is also not in dispute that credit of Rs. 3,41,397/- availed by the appellant on the said input services were not exclusively used in or in relation to the manufacture of Electricity Meters, but also used for trading purposes.
Neither section 529 nor section 529A of the Act mandate that to claim priority and preferential payment under section 529A the secured creditors must join winding up and cannot stand outside the winding up and/or it must relinquish its security.
