9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 2009X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , (Advocate). For the Respondent : Mr. Sanjay Jain, AR. ORDER Per S.K. Mohanty : These appeals are directed against the impugned order dated 24.01.2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, New Delhi. In this case, the benefit of abatement as provided under the Notification No. 1/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006 has been denied to the appellant. Further, the benefit of composition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmed solely, on the ground that the appellant is not eligible for the abatement and also for the ongoing projects, the classification cannot be changed to the works contract service. The ld. Advocate also referred to the Final Order No. 52469- 52470/2016 dated 14.07.2016, wherein the Tribunal has remanded the matter to the original authority to decide the issue afresh in line with the decision of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ide final order dated 14.07.2016 has remanded the matter to the original authority for deciding the issues afresh in line with the decision of Tribunal in the case of Bhayana Builders Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (supra). Therefore, we are of the view that the present matter should also be remanded to the original authority, s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
