TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 700
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d of together. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. As far as ST/89/2009 is concerned, this appeal has been filed by the assessee against an Order-in-Revision No. 21/2008 dated 24.11.2008 by which the Commissioner, exercising his powers under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994 revised Order-in-Original No. 01/2008 dated 08.01.2008. It is the submission of the appellant/assessee, that this order in revision needs to be set aside as the Order-in-Original No. 01/2008 has already been appealed against and Order-in-Appeal No. 29/2008 dated 09.06.2008 was issued by the Commissioner (Appeals) even before this Order-in- Revision was issued. 4. The Learned Departmental Representative also agreed with these facts. As the Order-in-Appea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the First Appellate Authority in Order-in-Appeal No. 29/2008 dated 09.06.2008. For the subsequent period of April, 2007 to March, 2008, the Learned Lower Authority classified the services as Business Auxiliary services vide Order-in-Original No. 36/2008 dated 20.10.2008. The First Appellate Authority vide Order-in-Appeal No. 10/2009 dated 26.02.2009 held that this service does not fall under the category of Business Auxiliary Services. The Department has filed appeal No. ST/497/2009 against this Order-in-Appeal on the ground that the services rendered by the assessee falls under the category of Business Auxiliary Services. For the period April, 2008 to March, 2009 the Original Authority vide Order-in-Original No. 59/2009 dated 15.12.2009....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ces rendered by them cannot come under categories of Clearing and Forwarding service as laid down in the case of Larsen & Toubro [2006 (3) STR 321 (Tri.- LB)]. iv) as no liability can be passed on them, either of these two services under which Order-in-Appeal for different period has confirmed the demands and no penalty imposed on them. 7. The Learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the contentions made by the appellant /assessee. He draws our attention to the agreement entered in to assessee and M/s Ushodaya Enterprises Limited. It listed the responsibility of assessee (the second part in the agreement) as follows: "5. The second party is hereby authorized to appoint agents wherever necessary in each....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Auxiliary Service as defined in the Service Tax Act. He, therefore, asserted that the activities rendered by the appellant squarely fall under the category of Business Auxiliary Service and they have been rightly so classified and concedes, that the classification under the Clearing and Forwarding services in Order-in-Appeal No. 29/2008 was not correct. On a specific query from the Bench, the Learned Departmental Representative agreed that the show cause notice had in fact not pointed to single service so that the assessee could defend himself. 8. We have considered the submissions made by both sides and we find strong force in the argument of the Learned Departmental Representative, that the services rendered by the assessee are not just ....