Appellate Tribunal overturns denial of abatement claim, remands for reconsideration.

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI set aside the order denying the appellant's abatement claim under notification No. 1/2006 due to simultaneous cenvat credit availing. The matter was remanded to the original adjudicating authority for reconsideration in light of a Supreme Court decision not available during initial adjudication. The Tribunal emphasized the appellant's right to present their case and refer to relevant decisions. The Tribunal did not delve into the case's merits, leaving all issues open for further consideration. The appeal and Miscellaneous Application were disposed of, with the decision pronounced in open court.

---

---

Issues: Availment of abatement under notification No. 1/2006 and simultaneous cenvat credit

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI, the dispute revolved around the appellant's availment of abatement of 67% under notification No. 1/2006, which was denied due to the simultaneous availing of cenvat credit of duty. The appellant contended that the service in question was not taxable as it fell under the category of work contract service, citing a decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a specific case. The Revenue, represented by the Learned DR, had no objection to an early hearing and suggested remanding the matter to the lower authorities for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court decision, which was not available during the initial adjudication. The appellant's advocate agreed to this course of action.

The Tribunal, after considering the arguments, set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority for a fresh decision. It was emphasized that the appellant should be granted an opportunity to present their case before the adjudicating authority and could refer to any relevant decisions they deemed fit. Importantly, the Tribunal clarified that they did not delve into the merits of the case, leaving all issues open for further consideration. The Miscellaneous Application and the appeal were disposed of accordingly, with the decision being dictated and pronounced in the open court.

---