TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 687
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ondent to file counter. 2. The petitioner is a proprietaryship concern registered with the Service Tax Department under the category 'Commercial or Industrial Construction Services and Construction of Residential Complex Services'. The petitioner is stated to be engaged in the business of Structural Glazing and Cladding. The petitioner claims that the activity would fall under the category 'Erection, Commissioning or Installation Services' as per Section 65(39a) of the Finance Act, 1994. The petitioner availed abatement under Notification No.1/2006 dated 01.3.2006 and paid service tax on 33% of the total contract value. The reason for availing the benefit of the said Notification is on the ground that the activity d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....udgment dated 16.4.2013 by observing that the representative of the petitioner should be heard and accordingly fixed a date for the hearing. In other words, the matter was sent back to the Appellate Authority for a fresh consideration, pursuant to which, a speaking order was passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 26.4.2013 in the stay petition pending appeal, directing the petitioner to pay pre-deposit of 50% of the service tax as confirmed in the Order-in-Original and on such compliance, the pre-deposit of the balances dues has been stayed. However, the petitioner did not comply with the condition of pre-deposit 5. Thereafter, the main appeal was taken up for hearing by the Commissioner (Appeals), who, by Order-in-Appeal dated 10.6.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er the questions of law, facts and evidence including the law laid down in the case of Uniworth Textiles Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur [reported in (2013) 288 ELT 161 (SC)] and shall pass appropriate orders. Thus, the directions issued by the Tribunal are mandatory in nature for the Commissioner (Appeals) to comply with the same scrupulously. 7. Pursuant to that, the petitioner filed additional written submissions before the Commissioner (Appeals), which have been acknowledged by the Commissioner (Appeals). In the additional written submissions, the petitioner contended that the Order-in-Original dated 28.3.2012 does not contain any specific averment about the suppression of fact. In this regard, the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uniworth Textiles Ltd., though in paragraph 5 of his order, the Commissioner (Appeals) extracted the order passed by the Tribunal. 9. It is to be noted that though the order passed by the Tribunal was arising out an order passed in an interlocutory application, the Tribunal issued a specific direction to the Commissioner (Appeals) to consider the question of law, facts and evidence including the law laid down in the decision in the case of Uniworth Textiles Ltd. 10. Useful reference can be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Kamalakshi Finance Corporation [reported in (1991) 55 ELT 433] wherein it has been held that d....