TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 292X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant, this Court noted a similar contention of the appellant and remanded the matter to the CESTAT for consideration of the appellant’s application for waiver of the pre-deposit afresh in accordance with law. Hence, as the contentions of appellant have not been considered by the CESTAT when it passed the impugned order, the impugned orders dated 28th July 2015 and 9th February 2016 are set as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as pre-deposit along with proportioned interest failing which the appeal would be dismissed for failure of pre-deposit. 4. At the outset, it is pointed out by Mr C. Hari Shankar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant that in the impugned order dated 28th July 2015 the CESTAT has set out only three contentions of the Appellant. The CESTAT has, however, not noted that inasmuch as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. 2015 (2) SCC 461 a distinction had to be drawn between the value of goods supplied as part of the works contract and the value of the services rendered for the purposes of service tax. 5. The Court notices that in a similar appeal before this Court by a sister concern of the Appellant, this Court by an order dated 12th October, 2015 in Service Tax Appeal No.1/2015 (Ahlcons India Pvt Ltd v. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
