JUDGMENT : Dr. Vineet Kothari, J. (Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the Final Order No.41933 of 2016 dated 21.10.2016 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench at Chennai in Appeal No.E/41266/2016.) 1. The Court was held by Video Conference, as per the Resolution of the Full Court dated 3 July 2020, by Judges at their respective residences and the counsel, staff of the Court appearing from their respective residences. 2. This appeal is directed by the assessee against the State, raising the following substantial questions of law by the assessee; 1. Whether the Tribunal has exercised its powers as required under Section 35C, especially when it is clothed with powers to remand back to the authority for fresh adjudication after taking additional evidence? 2. Whether the Tribunal and other authorities were right in disallowing Cenvat Credit especially when the same lower authorities have allowed credit for the same services for previous years/period? 3. Whether the Tribunal was right in disallowing Cenvat Credit on services, viz., Manpower, Fabrication & Erection, WCT SERTX and Repairs & Maintenance keeping in view the ratio laid by various CESTAT Tribunal, High Courts and Supreme Court? 4. Whether the Tribunal and lower authorities, have erroneously interpreted the definition of “Input Service” as defined under Rule 2(1) of the Cenvat Rules without considering that the said definition is not exhaustive and thus the Recovery Proceedings was initiated on completely wrong implication of law? 3. The learned counsel for the assessee, Mr.P.J.Rishikesh, submitted that on account of some lapses on the part of the assessee and the authorised representatives who represented the case of the assessee before the authorities below, the relevant evidence with regard to claim of the input tax credit could not be produced before the two appellate forums below and therefore, the claim of the input tax credit were disallowed by both the authorities below. 4. The learned counsel for the assessee also submitted that entire relevant additional evidence for making such claim is available with the assessee and if the Tribunal had remanded the matter back to Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) oreven now,if the matter is remanded back to the learned Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), the assessee can produce the entire relevant evidence and the input tax credit of the CENVAT can be allowed. He submitted that for the previous year, a similar input tax credit for the CENVAT was allowed by the authorities below. 5. The learned counsel for the Revenue, however, submitted that before none of the authorities below, the assessee has adduced any such evidence for making a claim for such CENVAT credit and even before this Court, no such application for adducing the additional evidence was filed by the assessee in the present appeal. 6. The learned counsel for the assessee, Mr.P.J.Rishikesh, further submitted that the loss of revenue to the assessee on this account of disallowing of the CENVAT credit is to the extent of Rs.9.00 Lakhs and with interest, it would have been little more. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, though we are of the opinion that the assessee having lost the opportunities before the three authorities below, namely the Assessing Authority, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) as well as Tribunal, all of them being fact finding body and who could have allowed such evidence to be brought on record by the assessee to examine the claim of CENVAT Credit of the assessee on merits, the only submission which has impressed us a little bit is that such claim in favour of the assessee was allowed by the authorities below in the previous period. Though no such evidence is placed by the assessee before us, there is no reason to disbelieve this statement of the learned counsel for the assessee and the same is also not controverted by the learned counsel for the Revenue with some evidence. 8. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that instead of answering the questions of law raised before us at this stage, without there being findings on the merits of the claim of the assessee by the authorities below, it would be appropriate to remand the case to the First Appellate Authority, namely the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), subject to payment of cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) by the appellant/assessee company to the respondent Department. The said contribution of Rs.50,000/- may be deposited within a period of four weeks from today. The said contribution of Rs.50,000/- may be deposited within a period of four weeks from today. Subject to such deposit, we set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) dated 25.4.2016 and Tribunal dated 21.10.2016 for the period April 2013 -September 2013 and restore the appeal on the file of the learned Commissioner Central Excise (Appeals) to decide the same again denovo, on merits and in accordance with law. The assessee may adduce the evidence stated to be lying with it, upon restoration of appeal and thereafter, the merits of the case may be decided by the learned Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) expeditiously. 9. With these observations, the appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs.