9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 189/10 dated 31.05.2010. The cross-objection No.ST/CO/40/10 is connected to this appeal. 2. Heard the Ld. SDR. None appears for the respondent. There is a letter dated 03.02.11 from the respondents, requesting decision based on the submissions made in cross-objection. 3. The respondents were issued a show cause notice dated 22.11.07, demanding s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority in para-5 of the impugned order in original has observed that the appellants in their reply to the show cause notice have produced a fax copy of work order given by their main agents in which they have instructed the appellants not to bill service tax. However, the lower authority vide its impugned order has observed in para 7 (findings portion) of the impugned order that the appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of MIL India Ltd. vs. CCE, Noida reported in 2007 (210) ELT 188 (S.C.), in support of his contention. 5.1 I have carefully considered the submissions of the Ld. SDR and perused the records. It is settled legal position that consequent to amendment of Section 35A (3) w.e.f. 11.05.01, Commissioner (A) has no powers of remand. Therefore, the order of the Commissioner (A) requires to be s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re the original authority. No doubt, that the matter could be directed to be dealt with by the Commissioner (A) or the matter could be dealt with by the Tribunal itself with the assistance of original authority. In the facts of the case, I hold that this course may not be desirable and I deem it appropriate that the matter must be considered afresh by the original authority himself. 6. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
