TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 373X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y them to M/s. Saumya Construction Pvt. Ltd. falls under designing services. However, there are nothing on record to suggest that the service provided by the appellant pertains to designing service charges only. It is found from the beginning, the appellants have been claiming that the amount which have been received by them from M/s. Saumya Construction Pvt. Ltd. And others service recipient is on account of designing of the logo and models. While the show cause notice, on the basis of information received from the service recipient specially from M/s. Saumya Construction Pvt. Ltd., has claimed that the appellants have been providing the service of Architect and Interior Decorator Service . At the same time the learned Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ised in the show cause noticed dated 21st October, 2009. The matter was adjudicated by Learned Additional Commissioner vide Order-In-Original dated 26.04.2011 where under all charges as invoked in the show cause notice has been confirmed. The appellant have filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who has also confirmed Service Tax liability primarily under two heads i.e. amounting to Rs. 7,07,945/- has been confirmed under architect service and a demand of Rs. 4,437/- has been confirmed for sale of space for advertisements services. The appellant are before us against the confirmation of the above demands by Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order dated 21st October, 2011. 2. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee dimensional models. 4. It is vehemently argued by the learned advocate that the Commissioner (Appeals) has also travelled beyond the scope of the show cause notice as well as Order-In-Original by classifying the entire receipts for service rendered by the appellant under the category of architect service. And therefore impugned Order-In-Appeal has travelled beyond the scope of show cause notice and as per the Tribunal decision case of M/s United Telecoms Ltd. reported in 2011 (122) STR 571 (Tri.-Banglore) same cannot legally be sustained. It has further been argued that confirmations of Service Tax of Rs 4437 are also not correct under the head of Business Exhibition Service Charges. As the appellant have recovered the charges by show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. We find that from the beginning, the appellants have been claiming that the amount which have been received by them from M/s. Saumya Construction Pvt. Ltd. And others service recipient is on account of designing of the logo and models. While the show cause notice, on the basis of information received from the service recipient specially from M/s. Saumya Construction Pvt. Ltd., has claimed that the appellants have been providing the service of Architect and Interior Decorator Service . At the same time the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the demand of Service Tax only under the category of Architect service. We feel that the department has not verified all the facts before issuing show cause notice in this case. We fee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
