Just a moment...

Top
Help
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful)

TaxTMI AI Drafter workflow from input facts to final legal draft Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.

Try Now
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2007 (5) TMI 634

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Appellant. Shri Anil Kumar, JDR, for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. - The appellant is required to pre-deposit service tax amount of Rs. 38,53,117/- and Education Cess of Rs. 25,173/- besides penalties. The appellants have been providing "Property Management Services" to various clients. They were registered under the Service Tax and were filing return regul....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ails have been furnished to the Department and therefore, the show cause notice issued in retrospective effect is not sustainable. He submits that the 'Management of Immovable Properties' was brought into service tax net with effect from 16-6-2005 and the appellants were discharging the service tax. The learned Counsel relies on the following judgments :- (i)     ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....i) Blue Star Ltd. v. CCE, Hyd-II [2007 (5) S.T.R. 353 (Tri. Bang)] (ix)   Petrofac International Ltd. v. CCE [2006 (3) S.T.R. 234 (Tribunal) = 2004 (178) E.L.T. 725 (T)] He contends that the issue is covered by the cited judgments. He submits that the appellants have strong case on merits. 2. The learned JDR re-iterated the findings of the Commissioner in the impugned....