9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 162X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... echnical) Shri M. Suresh, Dy. Commr (AR) for appellant Shri D.H. Nadkarni, Advocate for respondent ORDER Per: S.K. Mohanty These appeals are directed against the impugned order dated 02.07.2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and Service tax, Mumbai. 2. During the disputed period, the appellants were appointed by the Court Receivers (CR) of Hon'ble High Court, Mumbai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncy Service", defined under Section 65(105)(w) of the Finance Act, 1994. The dispute raised by the department in the show-cause notices was adjudicated against the appellants, wherein the service tax demand was confirmed and penalties were imposed on the appellants. On appeal against the adjudication orders, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the adjudged demand confirmed on the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax statute for not taxing the said service. It has been further contended in the grounds of appeal that since the ultimate payments were made by the banks for providing the security service by the appellant, such services should be considered as taxable service under the category of Security Agency Service for payment of service tax by the appellants. The department further contended that the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions as per the Court. Hence the activity undertaken by the appellant can be considered as sovereign function of the States in as much the Hon'ble Court performs according to the mandates of the constitution of India. Hence, we are of the view that setting aside the adjudication orders by the Commissioner (Appeals) on merits cannot be interfered with at this juncture. 5. In view of above, we do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
