ORDER :

Alok Mathur, J.

1. Heard Sri Pradeep Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri Dipak Seth, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue-respondent.

2. Since both the appeals have been preferred by the same appellant against common impugned judgment and order and involve similar question of law, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties they are being decided by this common judgment.

3. The aforesaid appeals, under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1944") have been preferred against the order dated 10/09/2018 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as "the CESTAT").

4. The appellant in the aforesaid appeals is the authorised dealer of Hyundai brand of motor vehicles and has been providing taxable services of "business auxiliary services", "service of motor vehicle" and "transport of goods" by road.

5. The controversy involved in the present appeals has arisen due to the rejection of the application preferred by the appellant for refund of the Service Tax deposited by it on account of "logistic charges" during the period 2009-10 to 2010-11.

6. Before the Assi