TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 1234
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Sanjay Jain, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER ASHOK JINDAL: The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein demand of Service Tax of Rs. 4,86,83,693/- has been confirmed under the category of errection, commissioning and installation services. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the activity....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellant is before us. 3. The ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that in fact, the appellant is providing the services along with material and the appellant is also engaged in the sale of certain machinery etc. The appellant provided all the details during the course of investigation itself and Dy. Commissioner was directed to verify, that whether the appellant was affected ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4. On the other hand, ld. AR submits that while adjudicating, the adjudicating authority has discarded the report filed by the Dy. Commissioner and thereafter examining the issue held that no material has been supplied by the appellant. Therefore, demand of service has rightly confirmed under erection, commissioning and installation service as the material used in the service has been consumed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fore the adjudicating authority for consideration. But in the impugned order, instead of examining the documents, the adjudicating authority has reported that he had perused the said report and found that factually nothing has been verified. 7. We find that the said finding is without application of mind and without examining the documents and reports produced before him. 8. In view of the a....