https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417606 The Tribunal found that the appeal could not be rejected for want of documents where invoices and challans had already been filed before the Commissioner (Appeals). Because the record before the Tribunal did not contain the material needed to verify the appellant's claim that the activity was job work service covered by Notification No. 25/2012-ST, the dismissal basis could not be properly examined. The rejection was therefore set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration after examination of the relevant invoices, challans and allied records. en-us Fri, 07 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 28 Jan 2022 09:01:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417606 The Tribunal found that the appeal could not be rejected for want of documents where invoices and challans had already been filed before the Commissioner (Appeals). Because the record before the Tribunal did not contain the material needed to verify the appellant's claim that the activity was job work service covered by Notification No. 25/2012-ST, the dismissal basis could not be properly examined. The rejection was therefore set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration after examination of the relevant invoices, challans and allied records. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 07 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417606