TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 1255X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the assessee and in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate that the Tribunal should hear the assessee on merits on the miscellaneous application. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal. - Appeal allowed by way of remand - Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 390 of 2014 and M.P. No. 1 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 6-2-2014 - Chitra Venkataraman and T.S. Sivagnanam, JJ. Shri L. Murali Krishnan, for the Appellant. Shri V. Sundareswaran, Standing Counsel for the Central Excise Department, for the Respondent. JUDGMENT [Judgment per : T.S. Sivagnanam, J.]. - This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (The Tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d order, the assessee is before this Court and seeks admission of the civil miscellaneous appeal raising the following substantial questions of law : 1. Has not the CESTAT erred in concluding that the appellant is not interested in conducting the stay petition when the appellant had appeared on 24-9-2013 and conducted the case and the case was adjourned when further details were sought for? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the CESTAT is right in not considering the preliminary question of limitation before directing the appellant to pre-deposit the entire amount of service tax? 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the CESTAT is right in not considering the fact that the main co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... actor has paid service tax on the flats sold to third parties and the plea of revenue neutrality. 5. We have heard Mr. Murali Krishna learned counsel appearing for the assessee and Mr. V. Sundareswaran, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue. 6. It appears that as on the date when the application was disposed of on 31-12-2013, it was not the first hearing and the case was heard earlier. According to the assessee, the case was adjourned for the purpose of furnishing certain materials. However, the nature of such materials is not placed before this Court. Be that as it may, the reason assigned for non-appearance on 31-12-2013, prima facie appears to be genuine in the absence of any rebuttal for the same. Therefore, in order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
