2015 (3) TMI 181

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2. The appellant filed the application for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax of Rs. 47,10,087/- interest and penalties. The demand is confirmed on the ground that the applicant provided business auxiliary service to the Singapore firm. The case of the Revenue is that the appellant provided the services of market survey and promotion of business of their client in India through Broadcast Channel....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ay order. Hence the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal for non compliance of the provisions of Sec. 86 of the Finance Act read with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. 3. The contention of the appellant is that the Revenue relied upon the provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of Export of Service Rules, 2005 and the same was omitted from 27.2.2010 and in the present case the demand is ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rvice in India and therefore the appellant is liable to pay service tax. 5. We have gone through the show-cause notice and adjudication order. We find that the Revenue is relying upon the un-amended Rule of Export of Service Rules, 2005. The Rule is amended from 27.2.2010 and the demand is after Feb.2010. In view of this, the demand is not sustainable. In these circumstances, we find that the app....