TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /18 - Dated:- 31-1-2018 - Mr. S.S. Garg, Member (Judicial) And Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri Bharat Raichandani, Advocate, for assessee Shri M.P. Damle, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for Revenue ORDER Per : S. S. Garg The appellant-assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 8.10.2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has changed the classification of the impugned services rendered by the appellant-assessee to promoting a brand of goods, services, events, business entity which is defined under Section 65(105)(zzzzq) of the Finance Act, 1994 instead of support services of 'business or commerce'. The Revenue has also filed appeal against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble head of business support service as defined under Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994. After following due process of law, the Additional Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 29.11.2013, confirmed the entire demand of service tax along with interest and imposed penalty on the appellant under Section 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant-assessee filed appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order dated 8.10.2014, upheld the order-in-original and rejected the appeal. Hence the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kar vs. CCE, Goa - 2018-TIOL-92-CESTAT-MUM; (ii) Warner Hindustan Ltd. vs. CCE, Hyderabad - 1999 (113) ELT 24; (iii) CCE, Goa vs. R.K. Construction - 2016 (41) STR 879; (iv) Balaji Contractor vs. CCE, Jaipur-II - 2017 (52) STR 259; (v) Sourav Ganguly vs. UOI - 2016 (43) STR 482 (Cal.); Learned counsel also submitted that in fact the appellant-assessee is not providing any service to the franchisee let alone business support service or brand promotion service and the agreement between the appellant-assessee and the franchisee has been misconstrued by the department. 5. On the other hand, learned AR submitted that the department has also filed an appeal against the impugned order on the ground that the depa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
