TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 321
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....undertaking various projects for erection and installation of prefabricated buildings for which they are manufacturing various parts in their factory located at Pantnagar. Such parts/components of pre-engineered buildings were being cleared by them to the site as also to their other own units located at various premises. The other units were also using the said part for erection of prefabricated buildings. The appellant was also registered with the Service Tax Department for the activity undertaken by them at the site under the category of Commercial and Construction services and were paying service tax, after availing the benefit of duty paid by them in respect of various parts/components so cleared by them from their factory. 2. The dis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er submits that the 110% of the cost stands calculated by the Revenue on the basis of their invoice value and not on the basis of the cost of the goods. He further submits that apart from manufacturing their own parts/components of the prefabricated buildings they were also purchasing certain items from others and were clearing the same to the site, by reversing the Cenvat Credit or on payment of duty on the value of the goods in terms of Rule 3(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules. He submits that Rule 8 does not apply in respect of the said bought out items. The reasoning of the Adjudicating Authority that said bought out items were part of the prefabricated building and as such the value of the same has to be included in the value of building is er....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lso stands upheld by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court on the same issue. Specific reference is made to Hon'ble Allahabad High Court decision in the case of M/s Accurate Chemicals Industries V/s Union of India reported at 2015 (324) E.L.T. 453 (All.). 5. After hearing the learned A.R. appearing for the Revenue who has reiterated the reasoning of the Adjudicating Authority, we note that that appellant are not disputing the fact that the valuation has to be done in terms of Rule 8 and in accordance of principals with CAS-4. The only dispute relates to the quantification of the demand. Admittedly, the Adjudicating Authority has relied upon the two reports given by the Range Superintendent which were not provided to the appellant. Their commen....