TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but the principle that is laid down by a higher forum is required to be followed. For these reasons, the impugned order has to set aside at once. The matter is required to be remanded to the file of ld. FAA to pass fresh order on merits after hearing the assessee. When the assessee claims that the issue on hand stands covered by an order of a higher forum, in respect of the very same assessee but for a different period, such previous order/s of a higher Forum shall be followed as long as the same are not stayed/set aside by Hon ble High court - Appeal allowed by way of remand. - Service Tax Appeal No.ST/40111 of 2020-SM - FINAL ORDER No.41258/2020 - Dated:- 3-12-2020 - MR P.DINESHA, Judicial Member Shri Harish Bindumadhavan, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 40/-on the ground of input credit availed being prior to the date of registration; that aggrieved, appellants preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), and vide Order-in-Appeal No. 342/2016 (STA-I) dated 10.06.2016 the first appellate authority set aside the order of the lower appellate authority and allowed the appeal. Against this, the department went on appeal before CESTAT, Chennai, and the CESTAT vide Final Order No. 42324/2017 dated 11.10.2017, dismissed the appeal of the department; that aggrieved by the same, the department went on appeal before the Hon ble High Court against the final Order dated 11.10.2017 and no stay has been granted. 2.2 The appellant filed a refund claim on 30.05.2018 before the Assistant Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consumption of employees, is incorrect. The Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered the case law quoted by the appellant in support of their contentions, etc. 2.3 The following are the case law relied on by the appellant in support of their contentions: a. K Line Ship Management (I) (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai 2017 (7) TMI 412 CESTAT Mumbai. b. Visual Graphics Computer Services (I) (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of CE, Chennai 2018 (1) TMI 269 Cestat Chennai. c. Harsco India Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE ST, Hyderabad 2017 TIOL-528-CESTAT-HYD d. CGST CE, Chennai Vs. M/s. Sharada Motor Industries Ltd. 2019 (7) TMI 562 (Tri.-Chennai) e. HCL Technologies Ltd. Vs. CCE, Delhi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s are to be upheld. 6. Heard both sides, perused the documents placed on record and have also gone through the decisions/orders referred to during the hearing. I find it unfortunate that the learned First appellate authority (FAA for short) has given some excuses to not to follow the orders of CESTAT, in the appellant s own case. It is not even the case of the learned FAA that the earlier order/s of this Bench that are referred in his own order at paragraph 8 page 5, have been reversed by High court or have been set aside. The facts may or may not vary, but the principle that is laid down by a higher forum is required to be followed. For these reasons, the impugned order has to set aside at once. But since there is no justifiable finding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
