2018 (8) TMI 901

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ounted as contract charges in respect of paint and body job charges, collected from customers during the period January 2004 to March 2005. A show-cause notice dated 30.1.2006 was issued, which was adjudicated resulting in confirmation of demand of differential service tax amounting to Rs. 10,18,922/- along with interest and imposition of various penalties under Finance Act, 1994. The appellant had deposited service tax of Rs. 7,49,611/- which was also appropriated by the adjudicating authority. Aggrieved from the order of the adjudicating authority, the appellant went in appeal before the learned Commissioner (A). However, their appeal was rejected. Aggrieved from which the appellant have filed this appeal. 2. Learned advocate for the a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 20.6.2003 and submitted that the said Notification includes the value of goods/materials sold during the course of providing taxable service. In this regard, he relied on the judgment of Samtech Industries vs. CCE, Kanpur: 2015 (38) STR 210 (Tri.- Del.), which has been affirmed by Allahabad High Court. He also pleaded that the amount received should be treated as cum-tax. He also pleaded that longer period of limitation was not invokable as the issue involves interpretation of law and the appellant was under bona fide belief that the service tax was not liable for the cost incurred on the paints. 3. Learned AR reiterated the submissions in the order of Commissioner (A). He relied on the following judgment of this Tribunal in the case of....