2018 (6) TMI 798

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... reference, we are discussing the different services:- 3. Supply of tangible goods - The appellant submits that the bunk house accommodation is created at the site of the client and therefore, such activity cannot be taxed under the category of "supply of tangible goods". To support such stand, the appellant has relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Hotel Kailash International - 2018 -TIOL-434-CESTAT-DEL. For ascertaining the nature of activities provided by the appellant to its client, we have perused the agreement placed in the case records. If bunk house is created at plot at site with various components and accessories, the same cannot be subjected to levy of service tax under supply of tangible goods service. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s contended by the appellant can only be verified by the adjudicating authority. We ask the Original Adjudicating Authority to verify the facts once again and decide the matter afresh. 4. Renting of immovable property: The appellant submits that the amount debited towards such service in the Cenvat Credit Account has not been considered by the Original Authority while adjudicating the dispute. Therefore, we remand the matter to the Original Adjudicating Authority for proper factual finding where the amount in question has been debited by the appellant from its cenvat credit account. If the amount has already been debited, as given by the appellant, the demand should be on such account, which should be dropped by the Original Authority....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cess service tax paid in respect of taxable service viz. security service, GTA and rent-a-cab service amounting to Rs. 1,42,723/- has not been considered during the course of investigation. Further, the appellant also contended that the amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- deposited under protest, during the course of investigation, though was appropriated in the adjudication order but the said amount was also confirmed as service tax demand additionally, resulting in double confirmation of the said amount. Since we are remanding the matter to the Original Authority, for consideration of other issues, we are of the view that the this particular aspect of excess payment and the amount deposited during the investigation should also be addressed properly....