9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1012X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax (Appeals), Chennai-I and the period of dispute is from April 2003 to April 2005. 1.2 A Show Cause Notice dated 23.10.2008 was issued apparently based on an internal audit by the Revenue in the appellant's premises. In the Show Cause Notice, the Revenue has alleged that on verification of records of the appellant, it was noticed that the appellant was rendering consultancy engineering services to parties in India and abroad, they were not paying Service Tax in respect of services rendered to foreign parties for the period 2003-04, 2004-05 and April 2005 though the amounts towards the said services were realized in convertible foreign currency, as detailed in the Annexure to the said Show Cause Notice. It is also alleged that the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inal, the adjudicating authority acknowledges the fact that the appellant had only supplied their qualified workforce to assist M/s. BBSL and that the same could not have been held to be a consultancy service. 3. In the adjudication order i.e., Order-in-Original No. 29/2010 dated 11.03.2010, insofar as consultancy services to various other clients like M/s. Caterpillar Commercial Private Ltd., M/s. Technical India Ltd., M/s. Saipem India Projects Services Ltd., M/s. FTZ Engineering Private Ltd., M/s. International Development Process and Engineering Ltd. and M/s. Alphine Inspection Services are concerned, the adjudicating authority observes that the appellant did not question the demand on these services and thus confirms the demand to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and non-applicable to the appellant since admittedly, the date of personal hearing itself was 08.10.2013 at 02:45 p.m. 7. Per contra, Shri N. Satyanarayanan, Ld. Assistant Commissioner, supported the findings of the first appellate authority and reiterated that the appellant having not satisfied the conditional stay order dated 07.02.2013, the order of the appellate authority is correct. 8.1 After hearing both sides, we tend to agree with the contentions of the Ld. Advocate since the said order referred to by the lower appellate authority in OISP No. 24/2013(M-IV) dated 07.02.2013 is non-existent; even if it is in existence, the same cannot be made applicable to the appellant since the very first date of hearing itself is in October i.e. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
