2008 (9) TMI 186

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rvice Tax, Bangalore. 2. S/Shri K.S. Ravi Shankar and K.S. Naveen Kumar, learned advocates, appeared for the party. Mrs. Sudha Koka, learned SDR, appeared for the revenue. 3. We heard both sides. 4. The party is a company engaged in the manufacture and sale of ready-made garments bearing the brand names 'Wrangler' and 'Lee' which belong to foreign companies. The foreign companies provided 'Intellectual Property Service (IPS)' with effect from 10-9-2001 to the party and the party being the service receiver was made liable to pay Service tax in terms of Section 68(2) of the Finance Act read with Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. The Service tax liability was discharged by the party using Cenvat credit availed on 'Intel....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... demand and other proposals in the Show Cause Notice. 6. The party is highly aggrieved over the impugned order and they have made several grounds. They have invited the attention of the Tribunal to the definition of 'output service' in Rule 2(p) of Cenvat Rules wherein in the explanation it has been clarified that if a person liable for paying Service tax does not provide any taxable service or does not manufacture final products, the service for which he is liable to pay Service tax shall be deemed to be the output service. The expression 'person liable for paying service tax' is defined in Rule 2 of the Cenvat Rules and has the meaning assigned to in Rule 2(1)(d) of the Service Tax Rules and Clause (iv), therefore, this covers the rece....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rofinish Valves P. Limited = 2008 (10) S.T.R. 21 (T) = 2007 (83) RLT 719 (T). (b) CCE v. Flowserve Microfinish Pumps P. Limited - 2008 (9) S.T.R. 278 (T) (c) RRD Tex P. Limited v. CCE - 2007 (8) S.T.R. 186 (T) (d) India Cements Limited v. CCE - 2007 (7) S.T.R. 569 (T) = 2008 (223) E.L.T. 78(T) (e) CCE v. Nahar Industrial Enterprises Limited - 2007 (7) S.T.R. 26 (T) (f) CCE v. Visaka Industries Limited - 2007 (8) S.T.R. 231 (T) (g) CCE v. Nahar Exports Limited - 2008 (9) S.T.R. 252 (T) = 2008 (223) E.L.T. 205 (T). 9. As regards the Revenue's appeal, the appeal is mainly on account of the fact that the Commissioner in the impugned order has not demanded the interest. As regards the Revenue's appeal, the following grounds ....