TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 852
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for the Appellant and the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent. Questions of law have been framed in the order 8 August 2017, which read thus:( i) Whether the Tribunal, under the facts and circumstances, was justified in holding that Notification No. 01/2006ST is in confrontation with the charging section, Section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ls), Central Excise allowed the Appeal preferred by the Respondent on the ground that the tax liability was correctly discharged by M/s. Devi Constructions Co.Pvt.Ltd. and therefore, the Respondent being a subcontractor is entitled to refund. It is this order which was subjected to the Appeal before the CESTAT. 4. We have carefully perused the impugned judgment from paragraphs 1 to 4.4 on pages 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appeal of the Revenue is dismissed." 5. In paragraph 5.1, the Tribunal held that in view of what is held by the Apex Court in case of the Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 2006 TIOL 327 HC HYD-VAT, the opinion rendered by the third Member of the Tribunal in the case of Sunil Hitech Engineers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur 2014 TIOL 160 CESTAT-MUM, is per incuriam.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....strued to mean that there is a general expression of agreement on the part of the CESTAT with the reasons recorded by the Commissioner. 8. Therefore, we are constrained to hold that the impugned judgment and order is perverse and hence, the same deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, we pass the following order. (i) Judgment and order dated 12 August 2014 is hereby quashed and set aside; (ii)....