9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 877X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consideration. - Decided against the assessee. - CEA NO. 7/2016 - - - Dated:- 14-6-2016 - MR. JAYANT PATEL AND MR. B.SREENIVASE GOWDA JJ. For the Appellant Sri Jeevan J. Neeralgi, Advocate JAYANT PATEL J., JUDGMENT The present appeal is directed against the order dated 10.06.2015 passed by the Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal for the sake of brevity), whereby the Tribunal for the reasons recorded in the order has set aside the orders of the lower authority and remanded the matter to the original authority to decide the admissibility of the refund claims afresh in the light of the observations made in the judgment. 2. We have heard Mr.Jeevan J.Neeral ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. We have heard Mr.Jeevan J.Neeralgi, learned counsel appearing for appellant-revenue. 3. The contention raised was two-fold; one was that the Tribunal did not examine the aspects as to the output services could be said as service or not and another was that, the Tribunal ought not have remanded the matter. Hence, he sought that this Court may interfere. 4. We may record that, in CEA 5/16 in case of Principal Commissioner of Service-Tax vs. mPortal decided on 9.3.2016 , one of the contentions raised was as has been raised in the present matter. However, at the relevant point of time, the service was not a service reckoned for the purpose of CENVAT credit but the Tribunal did not consider the said aspect. This Court while d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t cannot be said such exercise of discretion is perverse. 7. In any event, no substantial questions of law would arise for our consideration. Under the circumstances, no case is made out for our interference. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. 5. As the fact situation is the same in the present case similar view deserves to be taken. In view of the above, we do not find any substantial question of law would arise for consideration. Under the circumstances, no case is made out for interference. Hence the appeal is dismissed. 5. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find that any substantial questions of law would arise for consideration. 6. Hence, no case is made out for interference and the appeal is dismissed. - - TaxTMI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
