TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 725
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Shri Chidananda Urs B G, Advocate, for the Appellant Shri Neeraj Kumar, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent ORDER PER : D. M. MISRA This is an appeal filed against Order-in-Appeal No.06/2010 dated 06.01.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-II), Bangalore. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that during the period in question, the appellant had, by an agreemen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce Act, 1994. On adjudication, the said demand was confirmed with interest and penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, they filed appeal before the learned Commissioner(Appeals) who in turn rejected the same. Hence, the present appeal. 3.1. At the outset, the learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the proceeding is void ab initio as the demand could not be justified by the Department....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atural justice as no reasons recorded on the grounds urged by the appellant. the order is cryptic; hence not sustainable. 3.3. Further he has submitted that there could not be any demand of service tax under Business Auxiliary Service as the Information Technology Services are excluded from the scope of service tax. He has submitted that Information Technology related services has been made liabl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....07.2004 to 31.03.2006 respectively. 7. We find that the learned Commissioner(Appeals) has mechanically endorsed the order of the adjudicating authority and not discussed as to how the appellants are liable to discharge service tax under the category of Manpower Recruitment and Supply Agency Services & Business Auxiliary Service as per the definitions provided under the Finance Act, 1994. The ord....