Order of Tribunal can not be revised if Case Law not quoted during Submissions

The counsel of assessee pleaded in service tax case before CESTAT that decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court on case of CCE v. First Flight Courier Ltd. [STA No. 48 of 2010, dated 28-1-2011] that penalty u/s 76 can not be imposed where penalty levied under s.78 even before amendemend in 2008 be considered . Further he argued that same judge passed similar order just 15 days before rendering judgement in assessee's own case.

                                    Held by CESTAT -there is no evidence to show that appellant had the submissions or argued the case with regard to the decision in the case of First Flight Courier Limited. As regards the order of the Hon'ble Member himself, it was fairly agreed that the same was not available at the time when RoM was filed or at the time when the matter was heard. Under these circumstances, if the decision was not cited and the conclusion has been reached on the basis of submissions made, it cannot be said that there is an error apparent on the face of order. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that there was a mistake in coming to conclusion that penalty under sections 76 and 78 of the Act can be imposed simultaneously prior to amendment of section 78 of the Act. [2012] 24 taxmann.com 145 (Ahmedabad - CESTAT) Rahul Trade Links v.Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajkot