Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. Whether the Tribunal was right in not considering the decisions of the co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal in identical matters holding the issue in favour of the appellant herein inspite of the said decision having been specifically brought to its notice?"

C.M.A.Nos.514 to 516 of 2014:

1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in observing that it will not be proper for it to make any modification of the stay order in view of the existence of the order of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Baron International Ltd. - vs. UOI - 2004 (163) E.L.T. 150 (Bom.) overlooking the subsequent judgment of the very same court in the case of Maina Khema - Vs. UOI - 2004 (170) E.L.T. 3 (Bom.) holding that the said judgment though held that tribunal cannot exercise review jurisdiction, had jurisdiction to modify its orders within the permissible limits and parameters laid down under law?

7. The Authorised representative of the Revenue objected to the raising of the fresh grounds and reconsideration of the stay order. The Revenue relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Baron International Ltd. Vs. Union of India reported in 2004 (163) ELT 150 (Mum.). However, the said decision has been modified by the another Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Maina Khemka V. Union of India reported in 2004 (170) ELT 3 (Bom), holding that the Tribunal had powers to modify its order, but the power of review alone is not there.

"6. We have considered submissions of both sides. Stay order of the Bangalore Bench is with reference to training in 2D and 3D animation, which training was imparted using computer software and computer hardware. The Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal was of the prima facie view that it was not computer training but only a vocational training conducted with the aid of computers. In the case before us, the activity relates to testing of software and is primarily connected with computer software development and hence is prima facie covered by the exclusion clause under Notification No.24/2004-ST as amended by Notf.19/2005-ST. Therefore, prima facie, we do not find any merit in the new legal argument raised by the learned counsel. We also note that it will not be proper to make any modification of the stay order, in view of the observation of the Bombay High Court in the case of Baron International Ltd., (Supra). Considering both the aspects in view, we reject the modification application. However the time-limit for complying with the stay order is extended by another six weeks from today. Compliance to be reported on 17th October, 2013.