2022 (11) TMI 1042

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... J A Patel, Learned Superintendent (Authorized Representative) for the Respondent ORDER These both appeals are directed against the impugned Order-In-Appeal No. 100 to 101 /2011 (Ahd-III)/D. Singh/Commr.(A)/Ahd dated01.07.2011 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Ahmedabad whereby the appeal filed by the appellant has been rejected an appeal filed by the department was allowed. Both the appeals....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tatement with amount shown in ST-3 returns, it was observed that the appellant has short paid the service tax of Rs. 22,45,365/ -on the differential gross value of Rs. 2,00,32,797/- for the period from 2005-06 to 2009-10. Further on pointed out by the Audit officers, the Appellant agreed to the objections and made payment of Rs. 3,39,395/-. Accordingly show cause notice dated 19.10.2010 was issued....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dent (Authorized Representative) appearing on behalf of revenue reiterated the findings of impugned order-in-appeal. 5. We have carefully considered the grounds of appeals and perused the records. In the present matter we find that show cause notice was issued to the Appellant for including the value of pipes supplied free of cost by the recipient of service in the taxable value and demanding ser....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....icating authority decided the matter on limitation and dropped the quantum of demand, appellant not challenged the said finding before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). 7. First issue is non-inclusion of cost of the material received from the service receivers in the gross value of the services provided. We find that this issue is no more res integra in view of the decision of the Larger Bench deci....