TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 547X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd to the original authority while making it clear that no opinion is expressed on any of the issues and nexus issue in respect of the input services on which refund has been claimed will be considered afresh and for those input services that have been allowed by the Commissioner (A), Revenue is not in appeal. The appeals filed by the department is on two grounds, one is that the commissioner ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvice Tax Appeal No. 2405 of 2011 AND Service Tax Appeal No. 2407 of 2011 - Final Order No. 20024-20025/2022 - Dated:- 9-2-2022 - MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, TECHNICAL MEMBER AND MR. P DINESHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri K. B. Nanaiah, Asst. Commissioner, Authorised Representative for the appellant. Ms. Sudeshna Banerjee, Advocate for the respondent. ORDER Learned Authorized Representative ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (A) is a remand in the normal sense of law; the said remand was only to the extent of quantification of refund on the services which the learned Commissioner (A) had held to be eligible for refund; Madras High Court in the case of A. S. Babu Sah Designs vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-I), Chennai reported in 2020 (38) GSTL 161 and the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Service Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. However, we find that Revenue has not filed any appeal against the final order of this Bench on the issue of nexus between certain input services and the export services which have been allowed by the Commissioner (A). Moreover, we find that the Commissioner (A) remanded the case to the Original Authority for the purpose of quantification only. 6. In view of the above, we find that the depar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
