https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458238 The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had proceeded on the assumption that the work orders were not on record, while the appellants maintained that they had already been produced. It also noted that an earlier remand direction required the dispute to be decided afresh in light of the rulings and materials before the adjudicating authority, but the relevant judgments were not addressed. On that basis, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Original Adjudicating Authority for fresh consideration. en-us Thu, 01 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Oct 2024 13:34:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458238 The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had proceeded on the assumption that the work orders were not on record, while the appellants maintained that they had already been produced. It also noted that an earlier remand direction required the dispute to be decided afresh in light of the rulings and materials before the adjudicating authority, but the relevant judgments were not addressed. On that basis, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Original Adjudicating Authority for fresh consideration. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 01 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458238