9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 302X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for Respondent Per: M. V. Ravindran: This appeal is filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Original No. 14/STC/BR/09-10 dated 28.10.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai. 2. None appeared on behalf of the respondent despite notice; since the appeal is of 2010 we take up the same for disposal. 3. Heard learned departmental representative and perused the records. 4. The Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same impugned order and had preferred an appeal against the said order which was heard by the Bench on 07.08.2014 vide final Order No. A/ 1387 - 1389/ 14/ CSTB/C-I, set aside the very same impugned Order-in-Original. Since the Bench has already set aside the Order-in-original, Revenue's appeal for non-imposition of penalty under Section 76 is now infructuous. 6. As regards the Revenue's ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvice Tax under clause (ii) of Section 65(19) relating to "Business Auxiliary Services". The amount incurred by the noticee for promotional activities which was reimbursed by the WU comes to Rs. 23,92,199/- during the period 01.07.2003 19.11.2003 and from 15.03.2005 to 31.03.2008. The total service tax liability on this amount comes to Rs. 2,50,912/- and Rs. 3842/- as education cess and Rs. 648/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces recipient located at abroad. We find that this ratio is settled by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-Il Vs. SGS India Pvt. Ltd. [2014 (34) STR 554 (Bom.)]. In view of the foregoing, we hold that the appeal filed by the Revenue is devoid of merits. The appeal is rejected.
(Operative portion of the order pronounced in open Court) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
