JUDGMENT K.L. Manjunath, J.— The Revenue has come up in appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Bangalore, (CESTAT) dated 22.6.2006 in Appeal No. ST/38/06 and final order No. 1065/2006 raising the following substantial questions of law. 1) Whether the Hon'ble CESTAT is legal and correct in unconditionally setting aside the demand for service tax, without considering the legal provisions that the service tax is liable to he paid by the respondent as and when the payment for the service provided is received by thorn; ii) Whether the Hon'ble CESTAT is legal and correct In holding that suppression of facts did not exist And hence the extended time limit laid down in Section 73 of the Act is not invokable in the case. 2. The facts leading to this cause are as hero under: 3. The respondent-assesaee is providing services and registered with the Service Tax Department dated 6.9.2000 under the Finance Act, 1994. According to the assesses, the assessee has been regularly filing the returns and in the return it is disclosed the non receipt of the service charges due from its customers. A show cause notice was issued by the department stating that the assessee has failed to pay the service tax and for which reply was sent by the assessee saying that, in accordance with law returns are being filed and service tax are not paid by it only on account of non receipt of service tax due from its customers. The contention of the assesses was not accepted by the authority and the authority has passed an order calling upon the assessee to pay service tax along with the penalty and interest. Challenging the legality and correctness of the order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The said order has been reversed by the Tribunal. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Challenging the legality and correctness of the order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The said order has been reversed by the Tribunal. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. In order to consider the questions of law framed in this appeal, first the court has to ascertain, whether the assessee has filed the return in accordance with the Service Tax Act within the stipulated time and whether tax is paid if service charges are received by it and similarly this Court has to consider whether the show cause notice issued by the department is barred by time. 5. These questions could be answered only if the assessee has collected the service charges from its customers. The assessee has produced before the Tribunal xerox copies of the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant of its Company. Based on the same, the Tribunal has reversed the finding of the Commissioner. 6. The Revenue contends that, actually the assessee has collected th9 service charges from its customers which is a question of fact and the name has to be ascertained and it is also the casa of the Revenue that the assessee has not filed the returns in time. 7. However, the learned Counsel for the assessee contends that the Commissioner did not consider the material placed before him in regard to filing of the returns. 8. These are the disputed questions. Without ascertaining the actual facts, the substantial questions of law cannot be answered by us. In the circumstance, in order to find out whether service charges are collected by the assessee and whether the assesses has really filed the return or not, the matter requires to be reconsidered by the Commissioner. 9. In the circumstances, without answering the questions of law, we allow this appeal. The order of the CESTAT passed in Final Order No. 1065/06 dated 19.6.2006 is hereby set aside and so also the order passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore, dated 15.11.2005 is also set aside.