2017 (1) TMI 501

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... After the audit of their accounts, the Department entertained a view that during the period 01/10/2002 to 01/03/2006 the appellants did not discharge service tax liability properly. There was a short payment of service tax, as full consideration received for taxable service has not been considered for payment of tax. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated to recover the short paid service tax which concluded in the original order confirming service tax demand of Rs. 25,49,146/-. Penalties under Section 77 and 78 were also imposed on the appellant. On appeal, vide the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the original order. 2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted mainly on three issues : (a) during the material ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he sides and perused appeal records. We note that on the first issue of classification of service, the impugned order did not record a categorical finding. It was recorded that the services rendered by the appellant may be classifiable under Public Relation Services from the date of their application for registration, this by itself does not mean the services not covered under any other taxable service earlier. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) put the responsibility of classification only on the appellant without giving his finding on the claim made by the appellants. It was also recorded that copies of some of the agreements have been placed on record. However, it was held that the appellant failed to show that the services rendered by t....