https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364627 The Tribunal held that the Larger Bench was rightly constituted under the Act and Rules, dismissing the preliminary objection raised by the Revenue as frivolous. However, Members C.J. Mathew and S.K. Mohanty disagreed, stating that the absence of a President restricts the Tribunal from deciding certain matters requiring the President's approval. They found the objection raised by the Revenue to be valid and recommended deferring the hearing until a President is appointed to avoid jurisdictional controversy. The hearing was adjourned sine-die pending the appointment of the President of CESTAT. en-us Wed, 18 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Jan 2019 12:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364627 The Tribunal held that the Larger Bench was rightly constituted under the Act and Rules, dismissing the preliminary objection raised by the Revenue as frivolous. However, Members C.J. Mathew and S.K. Mohanty disagreed, stating that the absence of a President restricts the Tribunal from deciding certain matters requiring the President's approval. They found the objection raised by the Revenue to be valid and recommended deferring the hearing until a President is appointed to avoid jurisdictional controversy. The hearing was adjourned sine-die pending the appointment of the President of CESTAT. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 18 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364627