9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 488X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Respondent : Mr. R. K. Singla, Commissioner (AR) JUDGEMENT Per: D. N. Panda Learned Chartered Accountant for appellant submits that service tax demands of the extent depicted against each period arose were as under : S/No. Period/Year Service Tax demanded (in Rs.) 1. 2003-04 to 2007-08 2,62,84,245/- 2. 2008-09 Nil 3. 2009-10 1,07,53,337/- 4. 2010-11 2,23,16,485/- 2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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-ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation order. Therefore he is helpless to make any averment on that count. As the appellant discharged the liability as exhibited by pages 119 & 120 of the appeal folder, the matter may go back to learned adjudicating authority for verification. 6.2. In so far as the demand of 2009-10 is concerned, Revenue says that no material evidence was brought to appreciate that appellant had issued separate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 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 Rs. 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 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w-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 (213) E.L.T. 487 (S.C.)] the demand of Rs. 2,23,16,485/- for the year 2010-11 does not sustain. Appellant succeeds on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
