9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 861X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Held that:- the appellant has a good prime-facie case for the period prior to 1.3.2006. However, as the demand also falls under March 2006 period, we are of the view that the appellant is required to deposit the said demand. Ld. Advocate clarifies that the same would be around ₹ 3.11 lakhs. - stay granted partly. - Appeal No. 57822 of 2013 - Stay Order No. 50047 /2014 - Dated:- 7-1-2014 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa and Mr. Rakesh Kumar, JJ. For the Appellant : Ms. Aparna Rao Ms. Manasi Patel, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Amresh Jain, DR ORDER Per: Archana Wadhwa: After hearing both the sides, we find that the appellant is engaged in the business of providing mandap keeper is holding service tax registratio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enefit of the same stands primarily denied on the ground that the services provided by M/s Indian Hotels Limited cannot be held to be Management or Business Consultancy. They are the franchisee services and as such are not covered as per the provisions of Rule 6(5). 4. We note that it is a well settled proposition of law that classification cannot be changed in the hands of the service recipient. We also note that the Tribunal in the appellants own case involving the same issue has granted unconditional stay vide Order No. S/579/12 dated 12.03.2012. As such by following the same we find prima-facie case in respect of demand of Rs. 1,01,35,565/-. Accordingly, we dispense with the pre-deposit of the same. 5. There is further demand of Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould be around Rs. 3.11 lakhs. We accordingly direct the appellant to deposit Rs. 3 lakhs towards the said demand. 6. Further, service tax of Rs.16,90,332/- stands confirmed in respect of services of mandap keeper, internet, beauty parlour etc. on the ground that the same should have been paid under the category of health and fitness of business support service. There is no dispute about the fact that the service tax stand discharged by the appellant under separate categories of mandap keeper, internet and beauty parlour service etc and as such confirmation of demand on the same services under a different head would not be justified. We, accordingly, dispense with the condition of pre-deposit of the said demand. Similar is the position in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
