TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1412X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd. [2010 (10) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] allowed it, without any further clarification - Held that: - instead of this court rendering any final decision, interest of justice would be served if we quash and set aside the unreasoned order of the tribunal. We restore the appeal back to the file of the tribunal for a decision afre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e input service credit in course of his/her business activity pertaining to the specific services set out in para 2 of the tribunal's impugned order. The tribunal initially thought that this was a matter requiring detailed consideration. Suddenly, it took it up and without indicating in any manner whether both sides concede that it is covered by a judgment of this court in the case of Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nner in which the tribunal has decided the appeal by a cryptic order, the present appeal deserves to be admitted. It is admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- (a) Whether in facts and circumstances of the case, the CESTAT was justified in law in applying the ratio in the case of M/s. Ultratech Cement Ltd. wherein the issue was Cenvat Credit availed on the service tax paid on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tead of this court rendering any final decision, interest of justice would be served if we quash and set aside the unreasoned order of the tribunal. We restore the appeal back to the file of the tribunal for a decision afresh in accordance with law uninfluenced by any earlier conclusion. We also clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the rival contentions. The appeal is allowed accordin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
