9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 561X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ST/876/2010 and ST/52839/2014. 2. On behalf of the appellant Shri J.K. Mittal and Shri Rajveer Singh, Ld. Advocates appeared. Revenue was represented by Shri Govind Dixit, Ld. DR. 3. During the course of the arguments, the Ld. Advocate submitted that the Tribunal has passed the said final order without giving due consideration to various arguments advanced by the appellants and explained various points raised by the applicant in the present ROM. With respect to the appeal, he emphasized the following points: i) Several material facts covered by the show cause notices were not considered. ii) Several material facts which were brought on record were not considered. iii) Several pleas made by the appellants based on material facts on reco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted (written note para 5) that they have not rendered any services which are covered in section 65(105)(zzzzq) read with section 65(25)(b) of the Finance Act in industrial construction services. After the introduction of works contract services w.e.f. 01.06.2007 under section 65(105)(zzzzq), the Show cause notice is liable to be quashed as such services cannot be treated as taxable prior to 01.06.2007, Without prejudice it was also submitted that activities undertaken for roads, dams, etc. are excluded from levy of service tax. No specific findings have been given on this contention. 5. Countering the above arguments, the learned DR submitted on behalf of revenue that the various points urged in the present ROM are not in the nature ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... final order dated 19.9.2006 is required to be recalled and a detailed order is required to be passed in its place. On the other had Revenue has argued that the pleas made by the appellants were not in the nature of rectification of mistakes apparent on record but amounts to re-appreciation of evidence which will lead to passing of revised orders. 8. On perusal of the final order passed by the Tribunal, it is seen that after consideration of all the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants, the impugned orders have been set aside and matter remanded for a denovo decision on the subject in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Larsen & Toubro - 2015 (39) STR 913 (SC). It is settled position of law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
