2017 (9) TMI 356

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for the Respondent ORDER Per: S.K. Mohanty This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 11.06.2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, New Delhi. 2. Brief facts of the case are that during the course of audit of records in premises of the appellant, the service tax officers observed that the appellant did not pay service tax on the gross value received by ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s Tribunal in the case of appellant itself, vide Final Order No.52493-52494/2017 dated 22.03.2017 has set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favour of the appellant. 4. The ld. DR appearing for the respondent reiterated the finding recorded in the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 6. We find that in an entirely identical set of facts, the Tribuna....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... up by the telecom companies. We find such activity cannot be considered as business auxiliary service. The operations are in terms of agreement on a principal to principal basis with no involvement of third party, namely user of telecom service. One more point to note is, that sub-clause (vii) talks about incidental or auxiliary service to any one of the activity in sub-clauses (i) to (vi). These....