2008 (11) TMI 152

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Raghavendra and Ms. Chetana, Advocates, for the Respondent. [Order]. - The Revenue has filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. 54/2007 dated 31-8-2007, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-II), Bangalore. 2. I heard both the sides in the matter. The only point at issue in this appeal is as to whether the demand of service tax for the period from 10-9-2004 to 28-2-....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ents had indeed informed the Revenue all the details of their activities and therefore, there was no suppression of the facts. 3. The Revenue is highly aggrieved over the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The learned SDR reiterated each and every ground of appeal made by the Department. She has stated that the letter of 1998 addressed by the Respondents to the Department was seen en....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... should be upheld. 4. On the other hand, the learned Advocate appearing for the Respondents invited my attention to the statutory provisions. No doubt, the Respondents took out the registration in September 2004 when there was an amendment to the definition of 'Business Auxiliary Service' wherein "production of goods on behalf of the clients" was subject to service tax. When the clarification w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ery clear from the records that they had informed the Department all the processes undertaken by them. My attention was invited to the letter dated 28-7-98 wherein the details of the activity undertaken has been informed to the Superintendent of Central Excise. In fact the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has elaborately dealt with the facts and came to the conclusion that there was no....