2016 (5) TMI 678

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ical Member For the Appellant  : Mr. Cherian Punnoose, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Ajay Saxena, A.R. ORDER All the four appeals; two filed  by the assessee and two filed by the Revenue are being  disposed of by a common order as the issue involved is identical and they arise out of the same impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals). 2.     After hear .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... by the Honble Karnataka High Courts decision in the case of Mportal India Wireless Solutions Pvt Ltd Vs CST Bangalore [2012(27)STR 134 (Kar)].  As such we find no merits in the above objection raised by the Revenue. 4.    As regards the balance amount, the appellants contention is that almost 24 services were involved  and the Commissioner (Appeals)  has discusse .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to claim the refund in terms of the provisions of Rule 5. 8.    Without examining as to whether the Commissioner (Appeals) has power to remand or not, we are of the view that the issue of input-output nexus can only be examined and verified at the level of the adjudicating authority. Inasmuch as the matter already stands remanded to the original adjudicating authority, we deem it f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X