https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4280 The Tribunal held that the lower appellate authority had not properly examined the respondents' service tax liability for the relevant period and the refund claim, so further scrutiny was necessary. It also found that the observation that the original order had gone beyond the show cause notice could not, by itself, justify modifying that order because the matter was not a departmental demand notice. As the limitation issue for part of the period was not disputed, the remaining controversy required fresh determination after hearing both sides. The impugned order was set aside for the remaining period and the matter was remanded for reconsideration of the actual nature of service rendered. en-us Fri, 02 Nov 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4280 The Tribunal held that the lower appellate authority had not properly examined the respondents' service tax liability for the relevant period and the refund claim, so further scrutiny was necessary. It also found that the observation that the original order had gone beyond the show cause notice could not, by itself, justify modifying that order because the matter was not a departmental demand notice. As the limitation issue for part of the period was not disputed, the remaining controversy required fresh determination after hearing both sides. The impugned order was set aside for the remaining period and the matter was remanded for reconsideration of the actual nature of service rendered. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 02 Nov 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4280