2018 (5) TMI 1061

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d name "Kamdhenu". For use of their "Kamdhenu" brand, the appellant was recovering certain royalty amounts from the franchisee manufacturers. The appellant has also allowed several other franchisee manufacturers to manufacture and clear the goods with the brand name "Kamdhenu". The DGCEI carried out search proceedings on 12.11.2008 at the factory premises at Bhiwadi, District- Alwar as well as their corporate office in Gurgaon. In addition, the residential premises of the employee, Ms.Archana Jain, J-1200, Palam Vihar, Gurgaon, which was said to be a secret office maintained by the appellant was also searched. During course of investigation, the Departmental Officers also recorded the statements of Smt.Archana Jain, employee, Shri Vivek Mah....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1,24,04,149/- along with interest and penalties for the above period. 4. The Adjudicating Authority pertaining, to the demands at sl.no.2, 3 and 4 accepted the submissions of the appellant substantially and restricted the demand only to Rs. 1,84,246/- + Rs. 97,831/- = Rs. 2,82,077/-. 5. In the present appeal, only the demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 1,24,04,149/- has been challenged. 6. In this connection, we heard Shri A.K. Prasad/Ms.Priyanka Goel, ld. Advocates on behalf of the appellant as well as Shri G.R. Singh, ld. DR for the respondent. 7. The grounds of appeal articulated by the ld. Advocate are summarized below:- (i) Ld. Advocate submitted that the entire case of the Revenue is made out from the data, re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....impugned order, in which the Adjudicating Authority has relied on certain evidence, which has not been cited, as relied upon documents for the present show cause notice. The Adjudicating Authority has extraneously relied on the evidence, which is part of different proceedings, which is not admissible. (iv) On merit, he also submitted that the computation of service tax confirmed in the impugned order has not been made on receipt basis. As per the provisions of Service Tax Rules, upto 1.4.2011, the service tax was payable only on receipt basis and not on accrual basis, as has been worked out by the Adjudicating Authority. (v) He also submitted that the appellant will be entitled to cum-tax benefit, which has been denied by ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llant. 11. From the record of the case, we note that the Department had instituted separate proceedings against the appellant under the Central Excise Act alleging evasion of central excise duty. The present proceedings relating to demand of service tax also stands initiated on the basis of the same search such proceedings and the documents recovered. The Adjudication Order No.32/2014-15 dated 6.9.2014 passed by the Commissioner in the Central Excise case was challenged before this Tribunal and the said Order-in-Original was set aside and the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication vide Final Order No.51337-51338/2018 dated 2.4.2018 with the following observations:- "9. After hearing both sides and perusal of the voluminous....