9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 377X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eriod ending 30.09.09 as evident from challans submitted. As the Commissioner (Appeals) would have examined the contract, nature of service received and give reasons as to why the service cannot be classified as Intellectual Property Right Service matter is required to be remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to pass a well reasoned order - orders for waiver of predeposits. - ST/269/12 - - - Dated:- 9-8-2012 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Mr. B.S.V. Murthy, JJ. For Appellant : Shri Dhaval Shah, Adv For Respondent : Shri S.T. Gurshani, A.R. Per : Mr. B.S.V. Murthy; The brief facts of the case are that, the appellants are holding service tax registration under Section 69 of the Finance Act, 1994, as amended from time to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yment for the same as payment for use of Intellectual Property Right Service and also paid R D Cess of Rs.1,20,032/-. He submits that as observed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), Notification No.17/2004-ST dated 10.09.04 exempts service tax to the extent of R D Cess paid in respect of Intellectual Property Right Service. He submits that even though they have not correctly shown the service under which the tax was paid and the deduction of R D Cess was claimed, the fact remains that they had paid R D Cess before filing the ST-3 return which clearly show that appellant had treated the service received by them as IPR service only. He also submits that in the impugned order, there is no examination as to why the service received by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant for reclassification of service by observing that the service received by them is consulting engineering service only and this is based on a perusal of the services received by the appellant according to the impugned order. In our opinion this one sentence is not sufficient. The Commissioner (Appeals) was required to examine the contract, nature of service received and give reasons as to why the service cannot be classified as Intellectual Property Right Service. Further, the observation that it was an after thought also has not been explained by considering the facts and circumstances of the case. Since the matter has not received attention it deserves, we feel it appropriate that matter is required to be remanded to the Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
