ORDER
M.V. Ravindran, Member (J)
1. This stay application is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. RKR(77)229/07 Dt. 24.04.2007.
2. Since the issue involved in this case is in a narrow compass, we grant waiver of pre-deposit of the amount involved and take up the itself for final disposal.
3. The Ld. Consultant appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that they made a detailed submission as to the non-taxability of the services under category of ‘Technical Testing & Analysis”. It is his submission that the liability of payment of service tax arise only on receipt of the payment. He submits that Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has only picked up alternate submission and disallowed their appeal without giving any findings on the main submissions made by the appellant, on non-taxability of the services under category of Technical Testing & Analysis. He submits that the impugned order be set aside and the matter may be remanded to Ld. Commissioner to give detailed finding on merits, Ld. DR leaves it to the Bench.
4. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. We find from the records that the appellant while filing appeal herein and before Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), had taken a definite plea regarding the non-taxability of their services under the category of ‘Technical Testing & Analysis’. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in his discussion and findings at paragraph 6 held as under:
I have carefully gone through the records of this appeal, the written as well as oral submissions of the appellant and in course of personal hearing. The appellant is disputing that the extent of demand has been wrongly worked out. In para 4(v) of the grounds of appeal, the appellant states “the liability for payment of service tax will arise only after receipt of payment. In some cases no payment is received, therefore demand will be reduced to that extent. Without prejudice to whatever stated above, it is submitted that as per Rule 6(1) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 the service tax is payable only after the receipt of payment form the customer”. The details have been spelt out at para 4(v) of this order.
It can be noted from the above reproduced paragraph that Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered the merits of the case but has considered the plea of the appellant as regard the liability of payment of service tax. To our mind this order, is a non-speaking order, on merits of the case. As such, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to reconsider the issue afresh on merits and other pleas as raised by the appellant in their appeal memorandum. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) may come to the conclusion, after granting an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants.
5. The appeal is thus allowed by way of remand.
(Dictated in Court)