9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 1210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvice as defined under section 65 (104c) of the Finance Act, 1994. After a careful analysis of services provided, the Commissioner (Appeals) after noticing that business support service was subjected to levy of service tax from 01.05.2006 and since there was no amendment in the definition of business auxiliary services , recorded a categorical finding that the activity of the appellant would not fall under business auxiliary service . The demand made for the period April, 2005 to March, 2006 was, therefore, set aside. On perusal of the order dated 23.04.2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) shows that a categorical finding has been recorded that the services would appropriately fall under the category of business support service, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reply to the aforesaid show cause notice contesting the demand both on merits and on limitation. The Additional Commissioner has by order dated 19.12.2012 confirmed the demand of service tax. The appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), which appeal has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 19.12.2012. 4. Shri Alok Kothari, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the order dated 23.04.2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the case of the appellant itself by which the demand raised for the period from April,2005 to March, 2006 has been dropped for the reason that the demand under business auxiliary service cannot be upheld as the services that were provided by the appellant would fall u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under business support service as defined under section 65 (104c) of the Finance Act, 1994. After a careful analysis of services provided, the Commissioner (Appeals) after noticing that business support service was subjected to levy of service tax from 01.05.2006 and since there was no amendment in the definition of business auxiliary services , recorded a categorical finding that the activity of the appellant would not fall under business auxiliary service . The demand made for the period April, 2005 to March, 2006 was, therefore, set aside. 9. Against the aforesaid order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the Department filed Appeal No. ST/790-791 793 of 2010 (CCE, Jaipur vs. M/s.Argus Marketing) before the Tribunal. A perusal of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
