TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 676
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CHNICAL) Shri B. N. Gururaj, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri Guna Ranjan, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent. ORDER Per: M.V. Ravindran These two appeals are directed against Orders-in-Appeal No. 54/2009 (V-I) ST dated 27.04.2009 & 78/2009 (V-I) ST dated 31.07.2009. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The issue involved in this case is regarding taxability of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and. 5. Learned Counsel submits that on similar issue in respect of very same assessee this bench has taken a view as reported at [2018 (10) TMI 553- CESTAT, Hyderabad]. It is his submission that in the earlier case, as cited, Adjudicating Authority had extended them abatement of 75% on the value of the freight. While, in these cases both the lower authorities have not extended any abatement of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e to the appellant, this 75% of the abatement of the freight value of the appellant needs to be extended which is considered in earlier two appeals. The adjudicating authority shall re-calculate the tax liability by extending abatement of 75% of the freight value and calculate the tax payable along with interest and appellant will discharge the same immediately. 9. Since, the issue involved in ....