2017 (4) TMI 861

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mavati Patil, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER P. C. This Appeal has been brought by the revenue to challenge the order passed by the CESTAT on 28th May, 2014. 2 The service tax Appeal of the assessee was allowed. 3 There were three issues involved. The adjudication resulted in a demand in the sum of Rs. 4,99,07,210/- with interest and penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 4 As .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ade the tax. As far as the first aspect namely computing service tax on computer training institute is concerned, in the light of the above notifications and exempting the service tax, so also a communication from the assessee dated 31st December, 2004, the Tribunal held that in the facts and circumstances, the demand within the limitation and normal period deserves to be confirmed. The demand bey .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ectual property service and business support service is concerned, the Tribunal held that intellectual property service became a taxable service from 10th September, 2004. The Tribunal found that the respondent assessee has the property rights over a software, which was allowed to be used by their clients. That is why the demand within the limitation period was confirmed and equally the penalties. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X