9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 603X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that:- The SCN was issued in the year 2009 for the credit notes and payment received by the appellant in 2004. Appellant has been consistently taking a plea before both the lower authorities that they were having a bonafide belief that these services would fall under business support services and not under business auxiliary services. Adjudicating authority has not recorded any reasoning fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... round that the appellants had rendered the services under business auxiliary services and not discharged the service tax liability thereon. 3. After hearing both sides for some time on the stay petition, we find that the appeal itself could be disposed of at this juncture. Accordingly, after waiving the codition of pre-deposit of the amounts involved, we take up the appeal itself for disposal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lower authorities. It is his submission that the adjudicating authority has summarily dismissed their claim for the limitation while the first appellate authority has not even given any findings on this plea. It is his submission that the impugned order may be set aside and matter may be remanded back. 5. Ld. DR on the other hand would submit that they have been providing the services which wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orded a single sentence on the question of limitation when the matter was decided by him. In our view, both the orders are non speaking orders, having not addressed the question of limitation before raised. 7. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing, we find that the impugned orders need to be set aside and the matter needs to be remanded back to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
