9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... falls under this category. Thus the impugned order is not comprehensive to the extent. The review order also does not challenge the applicability of CBEC Circular No. 123/5/2010-TRU dated 24.05.2010, the benefit of which has been granted to the respondents. Matter remanded for re-verification - appeal allowed by way of remand. - APPEAL NO. ST/87233/15 ST/CO-92432/16 - ORDER NO. A/86304/2018 - Dated:- 9-5-2018 - HON BLE SHRI RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And HON BLE SHRI RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri M.P. Damle, Assistant Commissioner (A.R.) for Appellant None for Respondent ORDER Per: Raju: This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against order of Commissioner rejecting the show-cause notice issued for reje ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2010 and not with the Notification No. 32/2010-ST involved in the present dispute. He argued that Notification No. 32/2010-ST required the service provider to be registered as distribution licencee, a distribution franchisee, or any other person by whatever name called, authorised to distribute power under the Electricity Act, 2003 whereas it was not required for availing Notification No. 45/2010-ST. Moreover the word for has been used instead of in relation to in Notification No. 32/2010-ST. He further argued that the decision in the case of M/s Kadar Construction -2014-TIOL-2138-CESTAT-MUM is not applicable to the facts of the case as the said decision dealt only aspect of the notification and not qualification of the person, in term ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lls under this category. Thus the impugned order is not comprehensive to the extent. It is seen that review order does not challenge benefit of Notification Nos. 45/2010 and 11/2010 granted by the impugned order. The review order also does not challenge the applicability of CBEC Circular No. 123/5/2010-TRU dated 24.05.2010, the benefit of which has been granted to the respondents. 5. In this context it needs to be seen that if without availability of the benefit of Notification No. 32/2010-ST, solely on the strength of Notification Nos. 11/2010-ST and 45/2010-ST the declaration made by respondents is proper or not. The impugned order is therefore set aside and matter remanded for re-verification on above lines. Cross objection is also di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
