9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1033X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adjudication only in relation to service tax demand, interest and penalty relating to “foreign exchange”). Thus even the order sheet noting dated 13.8.2015 reproduced earlier is not in disharmony with the CESTAT order dated 13.8.2015. - the appellant has not pointed out any error apparent in the CESTAT order dated 13.8.2015 per se. - ROM applications dismissed. - ST/ROM/50076-50078/2016 in ST ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be unsustainable and therefore set aside. (ii) As regards demand of service tax in relation to foreign exchange currency, we set aside the impugned order and remand the case for de novo adjudication after taking into account the contentions of the appellant. The appellant shall be granted opportunity of being heard before de novo adjudication. Needless to say that the penalties will also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeared on 13.8.2015 when the order was pronounced. On the other hand, ld. DR who represented Revenue on 1.6.2016 was the same who was present on 13.8.2015 and he categorically stated that the CESTAT order dated 13.8.2015 is not at variance with what was pronounced in the open Court. We also note that the said order has set aside demands of service tax, interest and penalties relating to cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 000/- under Section 77 of the Act against the Appellant; (d) set aside the interest under Section 75 of Act; (e) pass such and further order order(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case. As is evident, the CESTAT order dated 13.8.2015 did set aside the impugned order-in-original No. 172-174/GB/2013 dated 29.11.2013 (as a consequence of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igning and dating the judgement. We must hasten to add here that presently we are not necessarily taking the support of the above quote from the Supreme Court order as it is not necessary to do so. 4. We note that the appellant has not pointed out any error apparent in the CESTAT order dated 13.8.2015 per se. 5. In the circumstances, we are of the view that it is not a case requiring ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
