2016 (6) TMI 1105

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hluwalia, C.A. and Mohit Singh, Advocate for the Appellant. Ms. Neha Garg, Authorized Representative (DR) for the Respondent. ORDER The applicant has filed this miscellaneous application under Rule 41 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982 for implementation of final order No. ST/633/2011 dated 08/12/2011 passed by this Tribunal in appeal No. ST/328 of 2008. This Tribunal vide the said order has....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Further in this type of cases where the service provider has not been able to realise service tax separately from the person availing service, the Tribunal has been holding that the value realised should be considered as cum-tax value. One such decision is that in the case of C.C.E. v. Advantage Media Consultant - 2008 (10) S.T.R. 449 (Tri.-Kol.) which decision has been upheld by the Apex Court ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... tax demand for the extended period of limitation has been set aside by the Tribunal by allowing the part appeal in favour of the appellant, the service tax demand within the normal period by extending the benefit of cum-tax value has to be computed by the original authority, which in the present case has admittedly not been done, despite the fact that the Final order was passed by the Tribunal on....