2007 (5) TMI 635

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Seshagiri Rao ORDER P.C. Chacko, Judicial Member - After examining the records and hearing both sides, we note that, in the impugned order passed by learned Commissioner as revisional authority, the appellants did not get the benefit of abatement of cost of certain components/parts of elevators from the gross amount received by them from their customers under Annual Maintenance Contract (AMC)....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppellants by the Commissioner on the cost of components/parts supplied by them to their customers under AMC during the aforesaid period. On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the basic principle underlying the above abatement is that any Service Tax shall not be levied on goods on which Sales Tax was paid, the two taxes being mutually exclusive. It is submitted that Sa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e to their customers was allowed in terms of Notification No. 12/2003-ST ibid. 2. After considering the submissions, we find that the amount of differential Service Tax demanded by the revisional authority is only ₹ 1,48,213 which is the tax being levied on the cost of components/parts of elevators, supplied by the appellants to their customers under AMCs. The AMC mentions only the gross am....