TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 682
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Appellant Shri N. Satyanarayanan , Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER Per M. Ajit Kumar , This appeal is filed by the appellant against Order in Appeal No. 130/2015 (CXA - II) dated 106.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals - II), Chennai. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant, a registered service provider, who appeared to be providing ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he demand along with interest and he however, set aside the penalty imposed under sec. 77 of the Act. Hence the present appeal. 3. Shri V. Ravindran, Ld. Counsel appeared for the appellant and Shri N. Satyanarayanan, Ld. Authorized Representative appeared for the respondent-department. 3.1 The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is silent on the non-provision of relie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) TMI 57 CESTAT, Chennai. In the present case too the Show Cause Notice did not specify the contract reference no along with copies, the classification of the activities under different services under the Finance Act 1994 and the amount of consideration received under each of the contract and services rendered, to propose demand of service tax. Therefore, the impugned order based on such notice is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....overy of duty, penalty and interest and that all allegations to be met by the respondent have to be clearly spelt out in it, so that the respondent can make a proper defense of his case. Further as stated by the appellant for the earlier period too this Tribunal had found deficiencies in the SCN similar to the one noted above and had dismissed the department's appeal. 5. We find that the SCN date....