2015 (12) TMI 164

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ORDER Per Justice G. Raghuram: Heard the ld. Counsel for the appellant and the ld. A.R. for Revenue. 2. Appeal is preferred against the order dated 18.5.2012 passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), Delhi II confirming service tax demand of Rs. 6,04,130/-, apart from interest and penalties under Section 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 as assessed by the primary adjudication authority vide .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ity confirmed the demand by classifying the services provided as support services of business or commerce. 5. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal which was however disallowed by the impugned order passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). In para 12 of the impugned order, the lower appellate authority clearly recorded a finding that services provided by the appellants do not fall within .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X