2017 (7) TMI 848

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sue is pending before the Commissioner (Appeals). By letter dated 24.4.2007, the appellants have informed the said fact to the Revisionary Authority. Taking into consideration that the appeal filed by the appellant was pending before the Commissioner (Appeals), the impugned order passed by the revisionary authority confirming the demand of service tax is not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ay service tax, however, set aside the demand on the ground of limitation. Against the finding of the adjudicating authority that the appellants are liable to pay service tax under Business Auxiliary Service, the appellants preferred an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). 3. Thereafter, the appellants were served with a revisionary show cause notice under section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f Service Tax should not be revised and service tax to the tune of ₹ 46,90,610/- should not be recovered along with interest, besides proposing for penalties. He submitted that it was brought to the notice of the revisionary authority that an appeal is pending against the order passed observing that the appellants are liable to pay service tax under the category of Business Auxiliary Service .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X