9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 80X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt: Shri A.K. Raha, Advocate Present for the Respondent: Shri Atul Handa, AR ORDER PER: ASHOK JINDAL The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the demand of service tax along with interest has been confirmed against the appellant under the category of "Renting Immovable of Property Service". 2. The facts of the case are that during the course of scrutiny of balance she ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arly parts and thus reflected income of Rs. 3.5 crore annually on this account in their balance sheets. The appellant was paying service tax on annual fee of Rs. 10.00 crore under the category of "Renting Immovable of Property Service" with effect from 1.6.2007. The appellant did not pay service tax on apportioned upfront fee received by the appellant. Therefore, a show cause notice was issued to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned show cause notice has been issued to the appellant on 12.10.2012 to demand service tax under the category of "Renting Immovable of Property Service" by invoking the extended period of limitation. While adjudicating the impugned show cause notice, the adjudicating authority has held that the services rendered by the appellant does not fall under the category of "Franchise Service" whereas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the service tax sought to be demanded under the category of "Renting Immovable of Property Service". Admittedly, in the impugned order, the adjudicating authority has held that service rendered by the appellant does not fall under the category of "Franchise Service". Therefore, we find that as the demand of service tax under initial show cause notice has indirectly been dropped by the adjudicatin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
