2014 (10) TMI 62

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nce Act 1994 imposed. 2. The facts, briefly stated, are as under: The appellants are a joint venture of NTPC and Reliance Infrastructures Ltd. They provided various services to NTPC and RITES. They were issued a Show Cause Notice demanding service tax amounting to Rs. 1,59,97,633/- along with interest and penalties. Vide aforesaid Order-in-Original a part of the demand raised in the Show Cause Notice was dropped. The details regarding the demand confirmed are given below: CATEGORY OF SERVICE WISE BIFURFICATION OF TOTAL TAXABLE RECEIPTS S. No   Particulars   Category of service   Taxable value   Service tax payable as per the impugned order   Demand admitted and deposited by ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....inal and the last column of the table gives the amount which the appellants are contesting. The demands at serial numbers d, e & f of the table are not being contested. 3. Having regard to the nature of the case and the issues involved, the fact that more than Rs. 59 lacs have already been deposited and with the consent of both sides, we proceed to decide the appeal waiving pre-deposit. 4. The appellants have contended that in respect of the construction of guest house building for NTPC in respect of which a demand of Rs. 15,10,283/- has been confirmed, the adjudicating authority has not taken into account and discussed their contentions and has not even come to a clear finding whether the said demand has been confirmed under construc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....k those free supplies with the impugned service rendered by them. Thus the adjudicating authority came to a finding that the appellants have not been able to establish that they have actually included the value of free supplies in the gross amount charged. The appellants have contended that in the light of the judgment of the larger bench of the Tribunal in case of Bhayana Builders, the value of free supplies in any case is not includible for the purpose of permitting 67% abatement under Notification No. 15/2004-ST or Notification No. 1/2006-ST. We find force in this contention of the appellants that the adjudicating authority needs to now take into account the judgment of the said CESTAT in case of M/s. Bhayana Builders 2013 (32) STR 49 (T....