TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 720X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne more personal hearing was also been extended on 11.9.2012 in which the appellant was given full opportunity to rebut the charges - the principles of natural justice stand fully complied with and the technical objections raised by the appellant are rejected. Demand of service tax - commercial training service - real estate agent service - management, maintenance or repair service - Held that: - the appellant does not seriously contest on merit the demand - demand upheld. Demand of service tax - Internet telecommunication service - Held that: - there is nothing on record from which it can be inferred that the service relating to the audio conferencing was availed through internet. The only document available on record is copy of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sent appeal has been filed. 3. With the above background we heard Shri Rachit Jain, ld. Advocate for the appellant as well as Shri Amresh Jain, ld. DR appearing for the Revenue. 4. The arguments advanced by Shri Rachit Jain are summarised below: (i) The impugned order has confirmed service tax demands of (i) ₹ 23,23,71,599/- as well as (ii) ₹ 3,91,23,854/- on the marketing service fees received by the appellant from their foreign principal. The fees was received in connection with providing marketing and technical support service as a representative of the foreign principal but the same were carried out in India. He emphasised the fact that the payment for such services were received in foreign exchange and these activi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gainst the appellant is to be set aside. 6. The ld. DR for Revenue reiterated the findings of the adjudicating authority in respect of the services rendered in India on behalf of the foreign principal. 7. The ld. DR argued with reference to the demand of service tax for ₹ 31,80,857/- that the initial show cause notice was issued on the basis of the details collected from the appellant under summon proceedings. Only after scrutinising the reply of the appellant to the show cause notice, the department was in a position to identify the service in which such consideration received can be apportioned. Accordingly, the department has issued the corrigendum to show cause notice dated 17.8.2012. He argued that the principles of natural ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 17.8.2012 has spelt out the details of the amount of service tax demanded into four different services. But we note that after the issue of such corrigendum an opportunity stands extended to the appellant to file their further reply. One more personal hearing was also been extended on 11.9.2012 in which the appellant was given full opportunity to rebut the charges. In view of the above, we are of the view that the principles of natural justice stand fully complied with and the technical objections raised by the appellant are rejected. 11. Service tax stand confirmed on four different services - commercial training service, real estate agent service, internet telecommunication service as well as management, maintenance or repair service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounting to ₹ 7,63,331/-. 14. In view of the above discussions, the following order is passed. (a) Set aside the service tax demands of ₹ 23,23,71,599/- and ₹ 3,91,23,854/- (b) Upheld the following demands under: (1) Commercial Training Service - ₹ 11,48,006/- (2) Real Estate Agent Services - ₹ 61,904/- (3) Management Maintenance or Repair Service- ₹ 12,07,616/- (4) Set aside the demand in respect of Internet Telecommunication Service amounting to ₹ 7,63,331/-. 15. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we do not find any justification to impose penalty which is set aside. Appeal is partly allowed in the above terms. (Dictated pronounced in open Court) - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
