TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1181X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellate Authority. Be that as it may, in my view the impugned order is a non-speaking order. Without going into the merits of the contentions raised herein, the impugned order is set aside only to the extent of rejection of the amount of ₹ 1,51,348/- and remanding the matter back to the 1st Appellate Authority with a direction to decide the Appeal after following principles of natural justice - appeal allowed by way of remand. - Service Tax Appeal No. 88134 of 2018 - A/86284/2019 - Dated:- 19-7-2019 - MR. AJAY SHARMA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Sachin Chitnis, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Saikrishna Hatangadi, Asst. Commissioner, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rdingly a show cause notice dated 23.10.2013 was issued to the Appellants for rejection of refund claim for the amount of ₹ 2,00,376/- and the same was adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner, Refunds, Mumbai by which the rejection was upheld vide Order-in-Original dated 6.12.2013. The same was upheld by the learned Commissioner vide impugned order dated 23.4.2018. 4. According to Appellants, out of the said rejection they had accepted disallowance of refund of ₹ 49,028/- towards the input services which were not approved by the SEZ authorities and are now concerned with the rejection of the amount of ₹ 1,51,348/- only which was rejected on the ground that the Appellant had availed ITC in respect of softw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this order only to the disallowance of ₹ 1,51,348/-. It is not disputed that the refund claim of ₹ 1,51,348/- has been rejected only on the ground that the invoices shows that the supplier charged 5% CST which, according to the department, is applicable only in case of goods and not service. Both the authorities below failed to notice that in the invoices both CST as well as Service Tax has been charged by the supplier. While going through the impugned order I find that the abovementioned submissions were raised by the Appellant before the 1st Appellate Authority also and is recorded in paragraphs 3 and 6 respectively of the impugned order, but those were not dealt with by the said authority while passing the impugned order. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
