Full Judgment
2. In these appeals which have been filed by the Revenue against the common impugned order-in-appeal, the issue relates to the service tax liability of the respondents. I have heard the learned SDR and gone through the record. The perusal of the record shows that the show cause notice was served on the respondents calling upon them to pay the service tax for the period 16-11-1997 to 1-6-1998 being service receiver from GT operators. They however took the plea that they had already paid the tax. But I do not find any material on the record to substantiate their plea. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has accepted the respondents submission without verifying and ascertaining as to whether they had furnished any proof of deposit of the service tax. He has on one hand observed that the Assistant Commissioner shall verify this aspect. But simultaneously, he has also observed that the tax shall be deemed to had been paid by them. The penalty and interest had also been set aside by him without getting the proof regarding payment of service tax, from the respondents. But in my view, the Commissioner (Appeals) could not set aside the order-in-original and this error on his part has resulted in miscarriage of justice.
Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the cases are sent back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh decision after hearing the respondents. The appeals of the Revenue are allowed by way of remand.