9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent ORDER Per: Raju: This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against order of Commissioner rejecting the show-cause notice issued for rejection VCES-1 declaration filed by the respondent. Cross objection have also been filed by respondents. 2. Learned AR pointed out that the Commissioner has allowed the benefit of Notification No. 32/2010-ST dated 22.06.2010 for the period of 01.07.2010 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... licencee, a distribution franchisee, or any other person by whatever name called, authorised to distribute power under the Electricity Act, 2003 for distribution of electricity. He argued that the impugned order does not deal with this respect. He further argued that the impugned order wrongly placed reliance in the case of M/s Shri Ganesh Enterprises - 2014 (35) STR 348 (Tri). As the said case re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Electricity Act, 2003. 3. None appeared for the respondent. 4. On perusal of the impugned order shows that the said order holds that the respondent was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 32/2010-ST, 11/2010-ST, 45/2010-ST for the period up to 01.07.2012. It also makes notes that the respondent has not dispute the tax liability for the period 01.07.2012 to 31.12.2012. Notification No. 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ranchisee, or any other person by whatever name called, authorized to distribute power under the Electricity Act, 2003, for distribution of electricity. We find that this aspect of the notification has not been examined in the impugned order. It is not to clear as how the respondent falls under this category. Thus the impugned order is not comprehensive to the extent. It is seen that review order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
