Cum-duty benefit applies to unregistered service tax demands where consideration was not separately loaded with tax.

Cum-duty benefit was held admissible where taxable services were provided without registration or returns and the consideration had not been separately loaded with tax. The cited authorities were treated as factually distinct, including classification disputes and cases where the pricing structure supported a different treatment. On the facts stated, the demand had to be recalculated on a cum-duty/cum-tax basis, and duty, interest and penalty were required to be reworked accordingly in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in a demand arising from unregistered and unreported provision of taxable services, the assessee was entitled to cum-duty benefit while reworking the duty liability.

Analysis: The distinction drawn in the cited authorities shows that cum-duty benefit applies where the price realised was not separately loaded with duty and the assessee did not seek to recover tax over and above the consideration. The rulings relied upon by the lower authority were held to concern different factual domains, particularly classification disputes or situations where the price structure indicated a different treatment. In the present facts, the services were found to have been provided without registration or returns, and the demand was required to be recalculated on the basis that the consideration was cum-duty/cum-tax.

Conclusion: Cum-duty benefit was admissible, and the duty, interest and penalty were required to be reworked accordingly in favour of the assessee.

---