https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366038 The Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the case for de novo adjudication within three months, directing the appellants to provide necessary proof for the services provided by the Chennai Branch. The Commissioner confirmed the demand for service tax for the Chennai Branch due to lack of documentation, while exempting the Pune property income. The appellant's advocate admitted the absence of supporting documents during adjudication but assured their availability upon remand. The Tribunal found it just to remand the case for further adjudication to ensure fairness. en-us Wed, 13 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Aug 2018 06:18:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366038 The Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the case for de novo adjudication within three months, directing the appellants to provide necessary proof for the services provided by the Chennai Branch. The Commissioner confirmed the demand for service tax for the Chennai Branch due to lack of documentation, while exempting the Pune property income. The appellant's advocate admitted the absence of supporting documents during adjudication but assured their availability upon remand. The Tribunal found it just to remand the case for further adjudication to ensure fairness. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 13 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366038