9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 437X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hy, Member (T) Shri K.S. Venkatagiri, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri V.V. Hariharan, JCDR, for the Respondent. [Order per: Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T)]. - Heard both sides. Shri K.S. Venkatagiri, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants states that the Kolkata Corporate office of the appellants is the input service distributor and the total credit received by the appellant's company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confirms that the adjudicating Commissioner has further distributed the amount allocated to the Chennai unit of the appellants and therefore he does not oppose the prayer of remand by the ld. Advocate of the appellants. 3. After hearing both sides, we note that the initial distribution of the total credit received has been done by the corporate office of the appellants. The appellants have claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich the same has been distributed. 4. In view of the foregoing, we set aside the impugned orders and with the consent of both sides, remand the matter to the adjudicating Commissioner for a fresh decision. He shall give adequate opportunity of hearing to the appellants and if necessary, verification be done in the matter with his counter part in Kolkatta before passing a fresh order. The appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
