9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1370X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner of Central Excise, [2015 (7) TMI 855 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], wherein the Tribunal has remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication. Denial of exemption to the services provided to the SEZ Unit - Held that: - exemption under N/N. 4/2004-ST dated 31.03.2004 requires the approval of the SEZ developer/unit. The said approval was submitted by the assessee-Appellants, but the lower authorities have not taken any cognizance - matter needs remand for reconsideration. Appeal allowed by way of remand. - Service Tax Appeal No.1508 of 2010 - ST/A/51892/2017-CU[DB] - Dated:- 15-2-2017 - Mr. (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President And Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) (Rep by Sh. B.L. Narsimhan, Adv), Appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aside the impugned order in this regard and allow the claim of the assessee/Appellants. 5. The next grievance is pertaining to ongoing contract as on 01.06.2007. The lower authorities have not allowed the assessee/Appellants to switch to Works Contract for the reason that they were following the Composition Scheme for Payment of Service Tax Rules, 2007. 6. After hearing both sides, it appears that the issue has come up for consideration before this Tribunal in the case of Bagai Construction vs Commissioner , 2014-TIOL-3094-CESTAT-DEL and Ahluwalia Contracts (I) Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise , 2015 (38) STR 33 (Tri.-Del), wherein the Tribunal has remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for de novo adjudicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... both sides, it appears that the exemption under Notification No. 4/2004-ST dated 31.03.2004 requires the approval of the SEZ developer/unit. The said approval was submitted by the assessee-Appellants, but the lower authorities have not taken any cognizance. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the assessee-Appellants submits that the same can be again produced before the adjudicating authority. 10. Hence, we set aside the impugned order and remand the issue to the adjudicating authority to examine the said approval on merits and decide the issue afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee-Appellants of being heard and adducing the necessary evidence, if any, as per law. 11. In the result, the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
