Rachna Gupta DECISION
Rachna Gupta, Member (J)
1. Present order disposes of an application praying for rectification of mistake in final order bearing No. 53357/2018 dated 05.12.2018.
2. Learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that this Tribunal in the impugned final order has erred in not dealing with the following contentions of the appellant as were made against impugned order-in-original dated 31.03.2014:
(i) No specific categorization of demand has been made in the impugned show-cause notice dated 16.10.2012 which renders the entire proceedings as vague and bad in law.
(ii) In case of one of the group companies i.e. M/s. Skylarks Cazers International Vs. CST, Delhi reported as 2018 (5) TMI 877 Tribunal, Delhi, the demand was set aside for want of bifurcation of demand under various services.
(iii) The order has omitted to consider the other grounds stated in the appeal and the submissions which is an error apparent on the face of the record. Decision in the case of Chiripal Twisting and Sizing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India reported as MANU/GJ/0832/2005 : 2006 (198) ELT 340 (Gujrat) and Dewsoft of Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi reported as MANU/CE/0474/2016 : 2016 (44) STR 597 have been relied upon. Application is prayed to be allowed.
3. Per contra it is submitted on behalf of the department that the impugned appeal has been allowed by way of remand. The demand of Service Tax has been confirmed on principle, however, quantification thereof has been given to the adjudicating authority below for denovo adjudication. Thus, all the grounds as raised by the appellant are not the subject matter of rectification of mistake. All contentions have duly been considered by this Tribunal in the said final order. Appeal is prayed to be dismissed.
4. After hearing both the parties and perusing the impugned final order as well as it is observed and held as follows:
The show-cause notice proposing the impugned demand of Rs. 64,04,301/- was served upon the appellant observing that the appellant having a number of companies under its aegis and being run by Capt. T.C. Rao was availing payment of Service Tax by suppressing the full taxable amount collected from various clients who were receiving the services as that the security agency and manpower supply services from the appellant. The impugned final order after relying upon the decision in the case of Rajasthan Ex-servicemen Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur reported as MANU/CE/0136/2017 : 2017 (52) STR 42 Tribunal Delhi which has also been confirmed by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has set aside the contention about show-cause notice being vague and arbitrary. The contention about show-cause notice being barred by time has also been duly considered. Finally, the contention that the demand on gross turnover of all the services provided by the appellant without bifurcation thereof has also been, specifically, dealt with as the matter has been remanded back for the quantification of the demand on the basis of financial year-wise receipt service tax value. The adjudicating authority is also directed to examine the balance-sheet and other statements.
5. Para-13 of the impugned final order which, in fact, has been quoted in the impugned application is itself sufficient to reflect that all the contentions as were raised by the appellan........