9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1243X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt service does not seem to have been considered by the adjudicating authority. The matter remanded to the adjudicating authority for consideration of full documents and to give detailed finding and reasoning for his conclusion - appeal allowed by way of remand. - S.T. Appeal No. 52084 of 2014 - Final Order No. 50688/2018 - Dated:- 1-2-2018 - MR. Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President And MR. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Sh.Amresh Jain, AR for the Revenue Sh. M. P. Devnath, Advocate for the Respondent-assessee Per: V. Padmanabhan : The present appeal is filed by the Department against the order-in-original No. 172-174/GB/2013 dated 29.11.2013 passed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... various items of income, as contended by the assessee has given a general finding that no element of service is involved in this income. He submitted that the demand of service tax raised is of a huge amount and the total amount booked under other miscellaneous head also very significant. He argued that in the absence of clear consideration and recording of reasons by the Commissioner in the impugned order, the dropping of such demand is not proper and the issue has to be re-examined. 5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee on the other hand justified the impugned order. He referred to the elaborate submission already made by the respondent-assessee before the adjudicating authority. He specifically pointed out that the break-up of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is head of income, which makes it to fall in the ambit of taxable services namely Business Auxiliary Service . Having given careful consideration to the contentions of the department and the assessee, I find sufficient force in the contentions of the assessee on the basis of the nature of activities being undertaken by the assessee as detailed in their reply dt. 17th January, 2011. Hence, the arguments of the assessee are not tenable consequently, the demand of Service Tax including education cess and SHEC amounting to ₹ 19,11,26,853/- for the period 2005-06 to 2009-10 and ₹ 20413020/- for the period 2010-11 respectively made out on the Miscellaneous Income is not tenable both on facts and in law and therefore merits to be drop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
