9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 433X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ur. For the Respondent: None. JUDGMENT PER HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE Mr. M. Venkataram Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. Heard on the question of admission. 3. This appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, is directed against the order dated 11.02.2020 in Service Tax Appeal No.609 of 2009 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtment for payment of service tax and was not making payment of any service tax. According to the Department, the appellant had contravened the provisions of Sections 68, 69 and 70 of the Finance Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act"). 5. Thereupon, a show cause notice dated 17.10.2008 was issued to the appellant demanding a sum of Rs. 52,82,725/- as service tax on the service charges/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n in this appeal. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the record. 9. The Tribunal, inter alia, has held that the business auxiliary services at the relevant period included the services related to promotion or marketing or sale of goods produced or provided by or belonging to the client. The agreements which have been entered into by the appellant clearly stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
