9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 292X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tes For the Respondent : Mr Satish Kumar, Senior Standing counsel ORDER CM No.11997/2016 1. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The application stands disposed of. SERTA 9/2016 & CM No.11996/2016 3. This is an appeal filed by the Appellant against order No. SO/52657/2015 dated 28th July, 2015 and Misc. Order No M0/50076/2016-CU (DB) date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated as a works contract. It is pointed out that the above jurisdictional issue of the exigibility of the works contract executed by the Petitioner to service tax by wrongly classifying it as 'construction service', despite having been specifically urged by the Appellant before it, has not been taken note of by the CESTAT. It is pointed out that a further contention raised, but not considered by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontentions have not been considered by the CESTAT when it passed the impugned order, the Court sets aside the impugned orders dated 28th July 2015 and 9th February 2016 and revives the stay application filed by the Appellant before the CESTAT for a fresh decision in accordance with law.
7. The appeal as well as the pending application are disposed of in the above terms. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
