2008 (6) TMI 82

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e respondent [Order per S.S. Kang, Vice President] - The appellant filed these appeals against the common order-in-appeal whereby Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the claim of the appellant. The main ground of the appellant is that the appellant being proprietary firm is not covered by the definition of business auxiliary service as the appellants are not a commercial concern, therefore, are not l .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n for the appellate Commissioner to hold that, a sole-proprietary concern was not a commercial proprietary concern, and therefore, service tax was not leviable when taxable service was provided by a proprietary concern. A proprietary concern would mean the same thing as a proprietary business.  The distinction sought to be made out by the Commissioner (Appeals) is without any real difference .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X