2016 (10) TMI 486

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... have dropped the proceedings against the appellants, but instead of doing so, the learned Commissioner held that the activity undertaken by the appellants falls under ‘Franchise Service' which was also not the scope of re-adjudication awarded by this Tribunal in initial proceedings. Therefore, the impugned order lacks jurisdiction and beyond the scope of the show cause notice. As, in the show cause notice it has been alleged that the activity undertaken by the appellants falls under the category of ‘Management Consultancy Service’ but the Ld. Commissioner in the adjudication categorically held that the activity undertaken by the appellant does not fall under the category of ‘Management Consultancy Service'; therefore, no merit found in the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is not covered under the category of Management Consultancy Service', as alleged in the show cause notice, but the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand holding that the activity fails under Franchise Services . Aggrieved from the said order, the appellants are before us. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Revenue cannot go beyond the scope of the show cause notice as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai vs Toyo Engineering India Ltd ., 2006 (201) ELT 513 (SC) and SACI Allied Products Ltd. vs CCE, Meerut, 2005 (183) ELT 225 (SC). He further submits that the impugned order is also beyond the scope of the remand order by this Tribunal. He also submits tha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ned order, we find that the Commissioner decided the matter on scrutiny of certain agreements placed by appellant during the proceeding. So the matter is required to be examined by the adjudicating authority in the light of the Board's Circular dated 27th October, 2008. 3. In view of that, the impugned order is set aside and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner to decide afresh and after considering the Board's Circular and the submissions of the appellants. Needless to say that the adjudicating authority shall give a proper opportunity of hearing before decision. Appeal is allowed by way of remand. 6. In remand proceedings this Tribunal restricted the jurisdiction of the learned Commissioner. To decide the issue in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X