9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellate authority considered the facts on record. 2. Because while passing the impugned order the assessing authority as well as the appellate authority overlooked arid did not consider that no amount of service tax was payable by the appellant. 3. Because while passing the impugned order the learned authorities failed to consider that the application for refund by the appellant is still pending and without disposing off, it was not appropriate for the authorities to pass any order for recovery of interest or penalty. 4. Because no show-cause notice for recovery of the amount or interest or penalty was issued within the stipulated period i.e. between 16-7-1997 and 12-5-2000. Hence, the impugned order passed against the appellant is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich date no show-cause notice for the recovery of the same was pending. 7. Because while passing the impugned order the learned authorities failed to consider that the letter dated 7-11-2003 calling upon the appellant to pay service tax for the services of C&F availed during the period 16-7-1997 to 16-10-1998 was not a show-cause notice and was issued without vice of law and any deposit made pursuant thereto was totally illegal and the appellant is entitled to get the refund of the same as claimed by them in the refund application. Hence, there was no cause or occasion for the authorities concerned to demand any amount of interest on the said deposit. 8. Because the learned authorities failed to appreciate while passing the impugned order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passing the impugned order, failed to consider that no principal amount was payable and hence there E was no question of any interest or penalty thereon. 2. After perusal of the grounds taken in the Memorandum of Appeal by the appellants, I consider it necessary to remand the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for the fresh adjudication for passing a speaking order after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellants. While considering the matter the Commissioner (Appeals) may take into account the following case law : (1) In the case of L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd. v. CCE 2004 (165) ELT 161/ [1994-2006] STT 509 (New Delhi - CESTAT) and (2) CCE v. L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd. 2005 (187) ELT 5 / 2 STT 282 (SC). The appeal is allow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
