TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 666
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Government account but only a part thereof. A SCN dated 25.07.2008 was issued to the appellants, interalia, proposing to demand service tax amount of Rs. 11,31,413/- with interest thereon. In adjudication the original authority vide letter dated 16.02.2009 confirmed the proposals. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide an order No. 29/2009 dated 16.02.09 remanded the matter to the original authority who verified the veracity of the documents and decide the case afresh as per law. In denovo adjudication, vide order dated 26.05.2011, the denovo authority reiterated the earlier adjudication order dated 16.02.2009. In the second round of litigation the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order No. 176/2015 dated 12.08.2015 upheld t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the case of Kunal IT Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune - reported in 2015 (40) STR 560 (Tri.-Mm.). 3. On the other hand, for the Revenue, Ld. AR Shri K.P. Muralidharan takes us to paragraphs 7 & 8 of the impugned order to point out that the Commissioner (Appeals) has framed and analysed the issues involved in the matter, especially whether the service tax liability of the appellant has been fully met and only on reasoned conclusions has correctly upheld the findings of the original authority, interalia, that the appellants have furnished only photo copy of the credit note issued by the M/s. Aptech and that the appellant has not endeavoured to prove on record that they have satisfied the conditions in terms of Rule 9 (1) of the CCR. 4. H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsustainable and liable to be set aside and we do so. Impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any." 5.2 The decision in Kunal IT Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has been followed by the Tribunal in the case of Y.K. Information Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, New Delhi in Final Order No. 51744/2015 dated 22.05.2015, in a Bench where one of the Members was the then President of CESTAT, interalia holding as under:- "7. On true and a fair consideration of the terms of the agreement between the appellant and M/s Aptech Ltd., both of which are independent corporate entities under provisions of Companies Act, 1956 and particularly in view of the fact that it is not the case of Revenue that the contract was a dub....