2019 (2) TMI 381

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the same was not extended - From the impugned order, it is found that since the appellant could not place necessary agreement/evidence whereunder, service has been provided to Nagpur Municipal Corporation, the authorities below could not examine the claim of the appellant relating to cum-tax benefit and consequently rejected the same. In the interest of justice, the matter is remanded to the ad .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... security agency service during the relevant period but failed to discharge appropriate service tax. Consequently, show cause notice was issued to them for recovery of the service tax not paid during the period 2006-07 to 2010-11 amounting to ₹ 35,56,754/- with interest and penalty. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed with interest and penalty. Aggrieved by the said order they filed .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e-compute the demand by extending cum-tax benefit, subject to verification of documents. 4. Ld. AR for the Revenue has no objection in remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 6. We find that appellant in the present case disputed the computation of demand stating that the cum-tax benefit though requested by them before the authoriti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X