9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 1036X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent : Ms. D.M. Durando, Deputy Commissioner (AR) ORDER Per: S.S. Kang Heard both sides. 2. The appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby a demand of ₹ 35,79,441/- is confirmed on the ground that during the period 16.10.1998 to 31.3.2004, the appellant had short paid the service tax in respect of security agency service. 3. The contention of the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lation to service of providing safe deposit lockers or security or safe vaults for security of movable property. The contention is that as the appellants provided security, therefore are entitled for the benefit of the Notification. 5. The Revenue relied upon the findings of the lower authority and submitted that the appellant had not paid the tax in respect of the gross amounts received by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that some period of demand is even beyond the period of five years. 7. In respect of the benefit of Notification 56/98-ST dated 7.10.1998, the same is in respect of providing service of safe deposit lockers or security for safe vault and movable property. The appellant had not provided such service, therefore the appellants are not entitled for the benefit of the Notification. 8. In the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
