TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 488X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... djudication and without service of show-cause notice defence is denied. That manes adjudication fatal. - The appellant not having been brought home to the charge following the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment in the case of Commissioner of C. Ex., Bangalore vs. Brindavan Beverages (P) Ltd. [2007 (6) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] the demand of ₹ 2,23,16,485/- for the year 2010-11 does not sustain. - Decided in favor of assessee. In so far as the demand of ₹ 1,07,53,337/- is concerned, Revenue says that there is no finding in the adjudication order as to whether the conditions of notification are fulfilled by the appellant. This aspect also needs verification for which that is also remitted to learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed separate bills for study material for which value thereof shall be excluded from the gross amount for the service charge received towards Commercial Training or Coaching in terms of Notification No. 12/2003-ST dated 20.6.2003. 4. Last plane of argument of the appellant related to year 2010-11. It was specifically brought out by learned C.A. that for the period 1.4.2010 to 31.9.2010, the appellant was providing commercial training or coaching activity and after that period, proprietary concern of appellant was taken over by M/s Narayana Learning Pvt. Ltd. He says that no show-cause notice was issued to the appellant for the period 1.4.2010 to 30.9.2010. But the show-cause notice was only issued to M/s Narayana Learning Pvt. Ltd. fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed DR on behalf of Revenue that paragraph 20 of the adjudication order has taken care of the demand and Revenue has a case because the present appellant (M/s Narayana Coaching Centre) and M/s Narayana Learning Pvt. Ltd. are interconnected with involvement of the Proprietix of the appellant as one of the Directors of M/s Narayana Learning Pvt. Ltd. 7. Heard both sides and perused records. 8. Both sides agree that the aspect of demand of ₹ 2,62,84,245/- requires verification. Therefore such aspect is remitted to learned adjudicating authority for verification based on evidence available on record and considering submission of the appellant. 9. In so far as the demand of ₹ 1,07,53,337/- is concerned, Revenue says that ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
