9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 697X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eriod Covered by both SCN were different - HELD THAT:- The contract was same on the basis of which demand was raised earlier and was dropped, therefore, the department was in knowledge of the contract and all its conditions and its contents. The department had earlier raised the demand as Intellectual Property Service which could not sustain and in the impugned period has tried classifying the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3-DB - Final Order No. A/10196/2023 - Dated:- 2-2-2023 - MR. RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND MR. SOMESH ARORA (JUDICIAL) Shri Amal Dave, Advocate appeared for the Appellant Shri Tara Prakash, Deputy Commissioner (Authorized Representative) for the Respondent ORDER The present appeal has been filed by the appellants on the ground of limitation as well as on the ground of merits. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g royalty for technical knowhow was even notified by the department w.e.f. 10.09.2004 as Intellectual Property Service as has been taken note of in the matter of CCE ST Ahmedabad-III vs Hitachi Home and Life Solution India Limited as reported in 2016 (46) STR 668 (Tribunal- Ahmedabad) relied upon for his purpose by the Learned Advocate. On the point of sequel demand not being appropriate when ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rlier raised the demand as Intellectual Property Service which could not sustain and in the impugned period has tried classifying the same under Consulting Engineer Service. This seems to be inconsistent view of the department itself and cannot be attributed as intent to evade on the part of the assessee. Even otherwise on merits, we concur with the view as propounded by the learned Advocate that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
