2014 (8) TMI 25

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ri Vijay Kumar, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Amrish Jain, DR, for the Respondent. ORDER There are two appeals being decided in this proceeding. Both are filed by the same appellant on the same issue but they relate to different periods, as per details below: S. No. Appeal No. Period Involved Service Tax Demanded Date of SCN 1 ST/496/2008 Jul 03 to Mar 06 2,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....made by JVVNL to the appellant and issued Show Cause Notices demanding service tax short paid as detailed above. After adjudication and first appeal demands of Rs. 2,94,932/- and Rs. 80,697/- are confirmed against the appellant along with interest under Section 75 and penalties under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeal), appellants have f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ly to the appellants also. 5. The Counsel also submits the appellant was providing service to JVVNL and not to the customers on behalf of JVVNL. Therefore he argues that the activity cannot be classified within the clause "any customer care service provided on behalf of the client" or under the clause "provision of service on behalf of client". So he argues that the activity was not a taxa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s not sustainable. 8. In the matter of the scope of the definition of service at Section 65 (19) the ld. A.R. submits that this is a case where the service is provided to the JVNNL because JVNNL is paying for the service. But the beneficiary of the service is the customer of JVNNL. So this is a case of customer care service provided on behalf of JVNNL. He argues that the activity will come....