Naval Armament Depot Mumbai Versus Commissioner of CGST & ST Raigad
Service Tax
2018 (11) TMI 1519 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 28-9-2018
Appeal No. ST\/86922\/2018 – A\/87658\/2018
Service Tax
Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)
\nShri S.C. Dey, Representative for appellant
\nShri O.M. Shivdikar, Asst. Commr (AR) for respondent
\nORDER
\nPer: S.K. Mohanty
\nHeard both sides and perused the records.
\n2. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order dated 08.02.2018, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant has preferred this appeal before this Tribunal.
\n3. The appeal filed before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was dismissed on the ground that the requirement of Section 35F of the Central Excis<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n demand confirmed by the adjudicating authority. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Naval Armament Depot Mumbai Versus Commissioner of CGST & ST RaigadService Tax2018 (11) TMI 1519 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMICESTAT MUMBAI – ATDated:- 28-9-2018Appeal No. ST\/86922\/2018 – A\/87658\/2018Service TaxMr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Shri S.C. Dey, Representative for appellant Shri O.M. Shivdikar, Asst. Commr (AR) for respondent ORDER Per: S.K. Mohanty Heard both sides and … Continue reading “Naval Armament Depot Mumbai Versus Commissioner of CGST & ST Raigad”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15274","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15274","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=15274"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15274\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=15274"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=15274"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=15274"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n5. In view of the submissions made by both the sides, I am of the considered opinion that the requirement of Section 35F of the Act, have been complied with, for entertaining the appeal of the appellant. However, since the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of noncompliance of the requirement of Section 35F of the Act, and no findings have been recorded with regard to the merits of the case, I am of the view that the matter should be remanded to the learned Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding the issue afresh on the basis of the available records and the submissions to be made by the appellant.
\n6. Therefore, after setting aside the impugned order, I <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n