2008 (1) TMI 230

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... g an Order-in-Original dropping the proposal to demand service tax from the appellants, the Commissioner demanded service tax of Rs. 7,54,344/- along with appropriate interest and imposed penalties under Section 76 and Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 (the Act). The appellants had received technical know-how from a foreign collaborator along with right to use their brand name in exchange for pa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d order, the impugned services have been classified as "Consulting Engineer" service. 2. Moving the application, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Show Cause Notice issued by the original authority did not classify the impugned services under any category. Thus the order of the original authority was passed on the basis of a flawed Show Cause Notice. Any liability cannot be .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the original authority. This Show Cause Notice did not put the appellants on notice as to their exact liability, as the notice did not indicate the category of the services which the assessee had received. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel it is a fundamental flaw in the proceedings and the con sequential demand is not sustainable. I find that the appellants have made out a prima facie ca .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X