https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430373 The appeal was allowed by way of remand as the Member (Judicial) found that the appellant, who had made a pre-deposit as required by Section 35F for the appeal, was eligible to avail credit in their Electronic Credit Ledger. Despite the Commissioner (Appeals) acknowledging this eligibility, the original order was upheld, leading to a contradictory decision. The judgment set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for a clear decision in line with the appellant's entitlement for credit, highlighting an error in the Commissioner's ruling that required rectification. en-us Tue, 11 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Nov 2022 10:33:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430373 The appeal was allowed by way of remand as the Member (Judicial) found that the appellant, who had made a pre-deposit as required by Section 35F for the appeal, was eligible to avail credit in their Electronic Credit Ledger. Despite the Commissioner (Appeals) acknowledging this eligibility, the original order was upheld, leading to a contradictory decision. The judgment set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for a clear decision in line with the appellant's entitlement for credit, highlighting an error in the Commissioner's ruling that required rectification. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 11 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430373