9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 750X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en set aside and the matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority, and the said order is the basis for issuance of the notice, the notice also would not survive and consequently the order passed by the Commissioner also would not survive and the matter has to be re-considered afresh by the Commissioner in terms of the directions given in the order of this Tribunal - Matter remanded back - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x demand of ₹ 122,59,41,753/- had been confirmed against the same appellant for the period 01/06/2007 to 31/03/2012 and since the said order has not been stayed, the Commissioner has directed the appellant to remit the tax for the subsequent period on the same ground. In respect of penalties liable to be imposed, he has asked the assessee to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so points out that the order dated 30/03/2013 has been subsequently disposed off by this Tribunal vide order No. A/898/14/CSTB/C-I dated 09/06/2014 wherein the said order has been set aside and the matter has been remitted back to the Commissioner for de novo adjudication with a direction that evidence presented by the appellant for payment of VAT on the supply of goods should be considered and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... service tax demanded for the period 01/04/2012 to 31/03/2013 by applying the decision which has already been taken and the noticee has not provided any document pertaining to quantification of demand. 4. The learned Additional Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue fairly submits that this demand notice is only a notice and not an order and subsequently the Commissioner has passed the order- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
