TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1780X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rived at the conclusions in the impugned order without the benefit of that wisdom. On the clear finding of the adjudicating authority of the error in computation for inclusion in the proposed demand pertaining to transport of goods by road service, we find no contrary evidence to overrule the decision therein. The matter is, therefore, remanded to the original authority for compliance with the directions - appeal allowed by way of remand. - ST/88597 & 89003/2014 - A/87632-87633/2019 - Dated:- 10-7-2019 - Mr. C J Mathew, Member (Technical) and Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati, Member (Judicial) Shri Bharat Raichandani, Advocate for the appellant Shri Bidhan Chandra, Addl. Commissioner (AR) for the respondent ORDER Two appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me of the impugned order, Learned Counsel for the appellant informed that the demand pertaining to commercial and industrial construction service , management, maintenance or repair service and transport of goods by road service had been dropped by the adjudicating authority and that, while confirming the demand of ₹ 6,93,643/- pertaining to cargo handling service and of ₹ 61,66,691/- on renting of immovable property service , the demand on site formation and clearance, excavation and earthmoving and demolition service had been partly confirmed to the extent of ₹ 63,15,236/- and that their appeal is on that score. The appeal of Revenue is restricted to the dropping of demand of ₹ 3,25,39,783/- on account of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned in the notice, only a few were subject to tax and, that too, on grounds which are amplified sufficiently by the adjudicating authority. According to him, production of certificate of Chartered Accountant is not a substitute for the documentary proof envisaged in notification no. 12/2003-ST dated 20th June 2003 for which he relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in Commissioner of Customs Central Excise, Aurangabad v. New Hindustan Rubber Works [2015 (37) STR 120 (Tri-Mumbai)] and in Ador Fontech Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur[2014 (36) STR 146 (Tri-Mumbai)]. 6. Insofar as appeal of Revenue is concerned, he contends that the decision of the Tribunal in Sree Balaji Transport v. Commissioner of Customs, Central E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
