9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 279X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Consultancy Service". Also drawing attention to the letter F. No. 532/70/2009-TRU dated 30.10.2009 learned Counsel submits that the profit arising out of manufacture of liquor by the appellant using manufacturing facility of other shall not be chargeable to service tax. - Prima facie, pre-deposit is not warranted in the present case for hearing of the appeal. - ST/1304/2010 - - - Dated:- 2-6-2011 - Shri D.N. Panda, And Shri Sahab Singh, JJ. Appearances: Shri Tarun Gulati, Advocate, For Appellant Shri R.K. Verma, DR For Respondent Per: D N Panda: This appeal is in second round of litigation before the Tribunal against order dated 26th February, 2010 passed by the learned Commissioner consequent upon remand of the mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ory appears at page 101 of the appeal folder who were manufacturers acting under permission of the appellant tiling brand name of the later. The second category, appears at page 171 of the appeal folder who provide facility of manufacture to the appellants procuring spirit under license of the former. 5. Learned Counsel further submitted that the first category manufacturers using brand name of the appellant pay royalty to the appellant. In the second category cases, the appellant itself manufactures goods at its own cost using facility of factory owner and earns profit or loss while certain cost is paid to the factory owner. 6. Learned Counsel also pleaded that when the matter was remanded to the authorities below for de novo adjudicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not found to have provided Management Consultancy service the de novo adjudication should not have spread its arm to bring the appellants to a category different from that was alleged in the show cause notice. 8. Learned D.R. on the other hand states that it is not the section that is quoted in a show cause notice shall govern an adjudication. But the activity really carried out is required to be tested. The appellants got relief before the Tribunal when they themselves pleaded that their case may be governed by Board's letter No. 249/1/2008-CX-4 dated 27.10.2008 for which they cannot change their stand. They have to satisfy that their case is covered by aforesaid letter of Board. When the authority below examined the issue afresh follow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or long time and perused the record. Prima facie, we noticed that charge in the show cause notice proposed levy of service tax on the allegation of providing Management Consultancy service. The notice issuing authority quoting provision of law contained in Section 65 (65) of Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 65 (105) (r) called the appellants to lead its defence on the charge of "management consultancy" service provided. We appreciate that a show cause notice is foundation of adjudication and that may give rise to civil or evil consequences under the law for which adjudication order should not travel beyond show cause notice. 11. There is no difficulty to understand that there was mentioning of Board's letter dated 27.10.08 in para 2 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
