2017 (12) TMI 771

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Shri S.S Garg, Judicial Member JRS Associates Advocates & Consultants, Shri Jose Jacob, Adv. - For the Appellant Shri N Jagadish, AR - For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The appellants have filed these two appeals against the common impugned order dated 27.05.2014 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has upheld the order-in-original except for setting aside of the penalty under section 78 of Finance Act, 1994. Since the issue involved in both the appeals is identical, therefore both the appeals are being disposed of by this common order. The details of both the appeals are given below: Sl.No. Appeal No. O/o No./Date Demand Penalty 01 160/ST/CHN/10 13 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he records. 6. The Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same is passed contrary to the law and binding judicial precedent. He further submitted that the services availed by the appellant are in connection with the provisions of taxable service on which service tax is duly being paid and hence classified to be input services as defined by Rule 2(l) of CCR 2004. He further submitted that by virtue of wide interpretation given to the term input service, any services received in relation to taxable service could be utilized for availing the CCR. He also submitted that since the service provided on output service in respect of taxable and non-taxable service being the same and the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of material on record as well as various judgments relied upon by the appellant cited supra, I am of the considered view that the issue involved in the present case is no more res intergra and has been settled by various decisions cited supra wherein it has been consistently held that there cannot be different classification for the same services at the end of service provider and at the end of service recipient. Further, I also find that for the same service, the Commissioner (A) vide his order dated 06.03.2007, has allowed the case on identical issue. Further, I also find that in the case of M/s. Piem Hotels Ltd, cited supra, the Tribunal has held that it is well settled .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X