TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (9) TMI 760
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Nagar, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : M.V. Ravindran, Member (J)]. - This stay petition is filed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 300/2010 (STC)/MM/Commr.(A)/Ahd, dated 23-9-10 which upheld the Order-in-Original that confirmed the demand of the service tax under services "Intellectual Property Right Services". 2. Learned counsel submits that the appellant has been discha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of "franchisee services" as the appellants were receiving royalty charges from other companies for permitting them to use the appellant's brand name of few products. He submits that the adjudicating authority after considering submissions made by the appellants has confirmed the demand for the period from 10-9-2004 to 30-9-2004 under the category of Intellectual Property Right Services. It is the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the learned Commissioner (Appeals). 5. On careful consideration of submissions made by both sides and perusal of the records, we note that the show cause notice alleges and puts the appellant on notice for recovery of the service tax under the category of "franchisee services" for the amounts received by them as royalty from the persons who have been using their brand name. In the entire....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s category for the period in question. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has upheld the Order-in-Original confirming the demand under the services of this category. In our considered view, this is incorrect as the appellants were not issued any show cause notice for demand of the service tax under "Intellectual Property Right Services" for the period in question. In our cons....