9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 486X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cture of alcoholic Beverages. It was alleged in the show cause notice that the appellants failed to pay Service Tax on the amount received as 'Royalty' from various organizations for use of their trade mark during the period 2001-02 to 2003-04 under the category of I 'Management Consultancy Service'. It has been mentioned in the show cause notice that Madurai Commissionerate in the Trade Notice clarified that if a manufacturer gives consent to another manufacturer for use of his trade mark and realises the amount (Royalty) for the use of trade mark, it will be covered under 'Management Consultancy Service' and such amount of Royalty is liable to Service Tax. The show cause notice was adjudicated and in remand proceedings, the learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation of the agreements therefore, the learned Commissioner has rightly confirmed the demand against the appellants. 5. Heard both sides and considered the submissions. In earlier round of litigation, this Tribunal after hearing both sides as remanded the matter with following observations : "2. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the record, we find that the main contention of the learned Advocate is that the issue has been decided by the Board Circular F.No. 249/1/2008-CX 4 dated 27th October 2008. He submits that the activities undertaken by the appellants are coming within the purview of "Intellectual Property Service" which was introduced in 2004 in respect of 8 agreements. He further submits that the other 9 agreements has b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 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, we do not find any merit in the impugned order to demand service tax, therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
