ORDER M.S. Sanklecha, J. - At the request of Counsel for both the parties, this appeal is being disposed of at the stage of admission. 2. This appeal under Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 (the Act) read with Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, challenges the order dated 2nd December, 2016 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). 3. Revenue urges the following questions of law for our consideration :- "(a) Whether in facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in dismissing the appeal of the appellant sustaining the demand on new grounds which were not alleged in the show cause notice or the subsequent proceedings? (b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in sustaining the demand of Service Tax under Section 73A of the Finance Act, 1994 admittedly when the appellant had returned the excess Service Tax collected from the tenants by issuing a cheque to them? (c) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the show cause notice dated 12-1-2015 seeking to recover the Service Tax for the extended period under Section 73(1) of Act, 1994 tenable in law? (d) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in sustaining the imposition of penalty under Section 77(2) of the Act?" 4. The appellant is engaged in providing taxable service of ''Renting of Immovable Property''. While discharging its Service Tax obligation under the Act, the appellant claimed deduction in terms of Notification No. 24/2007 read with Rule 6(4C) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 (the Rules). In spite of the above, the appellant had collected the full amount of Service Tax from its clients i.e. not restricted to the amount which was paid over to the Central Government, as Service Tax. 5. In the above view, show cause notice, was issued on 12th January, 2015 by the respondent, seeking to collect the amount of Rs. 10.16 lakhs being the excess of Service Tax recovered and retained by the appellant under Section 73A(3) of the Act was issued on 12th January, 2015. The appellant contested the notice and pointed out that the excess of Rs. 10.16 lakhs collected from its tenants was returned by a cheque dated 3rd June, 2015. Thus, there is no excess with them. The appellant contested the notice and pointed out that the excess of Rs. 10.16 lakhs collected from its tenants was returned by a cheque dated 3rd June, 2015. Thus, there is no excess with them. Notwithstanding the above, the Additional Commissioner of Service Tax-I, Pune, by an order dated 27th November, 2015 confirmed the demand of Rs. 10.16 lakhs, made in the demand notice dated 12th January, 2015 and also imposed consequent penalty. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals). However, by an order dated 12th April, 2016, the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal. 7. On further appeal, the Tribunal by the impugned order held that the appellant had returned the excess amount to its tenant. In spite of the above finding, it upheld the order dated 12th April, 2016 of the Commissioner (Appeals) on the basis that the appellant''s client is likely to have taken to Cenvat credit of Service Tax shown in the invoice. 8. On the aforesaid facts, we were of the view that the appeal requires admission. However, on our observing this, the Counsel for both the parties pray that the impugned order dated 12th April, 2016 can be set aside and restored to the Tribunal for fresh disposal, in accordance with law. 9. In view of the above prayer, the impugned order dated 12th April, 2016 is quashed and set aside. However, the appellant''s appeal be restored to the file of the Tribunal for fresh disposal. All contentions left open. 10. Accordingly, appeal itself is disposed of in terms of above directions. The pending Notice of Motion taken out by the respondent, is also disposed of as infructuous.