2018 (9) TMI 1664

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Hari Radhakrishnan, Advocate For the Appellant Shri S. Govindarajan, AC (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per Bench The facts of the case are that appellants were engaged in providing service under the category of ‚Event Management and Business Exhibition‛ service. Pursuant to audit, it emerged that appellants had collected service tax amounting to Rs. 9,92,964/- from their cli....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....have been invoked and hence tax collected but not remitted to the Government of Rs. 9,24,235/- was demanded along with interest thereon. In appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order dt. 12.03.2010 upheld the order of original authority and rejected the appeal and hence the appellants re before this forum 2. Today when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of the appellants, Ld.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (2) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as made applicable to service tax matters. The period of dispute is 2002-03 and 2003-04. Business Exhibition Services were made exigible to service tax only w.e.f. 10.09.2004. We find that as per Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as applicable to service tax matters, during the period of dispute, only am....