9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 734X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Malhotra , Advocate for the Appellant Shri Raman Mittal , Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER P. ANJANI KUMAR : The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 09.02.2018 passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). The proprietor of the appellant Shri Jaideep Bhardwaj expired on 29.09.2020 and his legal heirs Smt. Sonia Bhardwaj W/o Shri Jaideep Bhardwaj, Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the demand of service tax amounting to Rs.6,28,449/- under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 along with interest under Section 75 of the Act; an equivalent penalty under Section 78, penalties under Sections 75A and 77 were also imposed. On an appeal filed by the appellant, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dated 09.02.2018 upheld the order of the lower author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ees in a number of judgments. This Bench in the case of Jalandhar Sales vs. Commissioner of CE & ST, Ludhiana (cited supra) has held as under: "9. Further, we find that this issue is no more res integra and has been settled by the various decisions of the Tribunal as relied upon by the appellant cited (supra); in the case of Commissioner of CGST Vs. Rama sales cited (supra) the Hon'ble Allahabad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... full value of the SIM cards, does not amount to providing business auxiliary services and confirmation of demand on the distributor for the second time is not called as per Section 65(19) and 65(105) (zzb) of Finance Act, 1994." 7. In view of the order cited above, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law. ( Operative part of the order pronounced in the open court )< ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
