https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215879 The appellate order was defective because it addressed abatement, which had already been allowed, instead of the real dispute whether the GTA service provider had discharged service tax on the disputed amount. As that core issue had not been examined or decided, the order could not be sustained. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the correct issue arising in the appeal. en-us Tue, 12 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 21 Aug 2012 16:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215879 The appellate order was defective because it addressed abatement, which had already been allowed, instead of the real dispute whether the GTA service provider had discharged service tax on the disputed amount. As that core issue had not been examined or decided, the order could not be sustained. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the correct issue arising in the appeal. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 12 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215879