9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1996X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t be ascertained; no objection in remanding the case to Commissioner(Appeals). Held That:- Commissioner (Appeals) did not go into the merits of the case; matter remanded back as such – Deposit of ₹ 2.00 Lakh admitted - All issues kept open. - Stay Petition No.SP-71218/13 And Appeal No.ST-71177/13 - ORDER NO.FO/A/75520/2015 - Dated:- 21-9-2015 - Dr. D.M. Misra, Member(Judicial) And Shr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich was exempted from payment of duty. However, the ld.Commissioner(Appeals) rejected their contention for non-production of sufficient evidences before him. He submits that the agreement between the Bridge Engineer and the Applicant enclosed with the present Appeal would show that the works carried out by them relate to Construction of Bridges. However, he fairly accepts all that the Work orders ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner(Appeals) for deciding the issue afresh on merit. 4. After hearing both sides for some time we find that the Appeal itself could be disposed of at this stage. Accordingly, with the consent of both sides the Appeal itself is taken up for disposal. 5. We find that the ld.Commissioner(Appeals) has not gone into the merits of the case while passing the impugned Order-in-Appeal; he has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
