TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (10) TMI 817
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... demand raised in 3 Show Cause notices (SCN) dated 16.03.2016 for the Financial Year 2014-15 for an amount of Rs.56,41,79,033/-, SCN dated 19.04.2018 for 2 Financial Years from 2015-2017 for an amount of Rs.166,35,17,279/-, SCN dated 11.02.2020 for the Financial Year April to June 2017 for an amount of Rs.22,97,19,993 along with interest and penalty under Sec 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 through 3 adjudication orders passed on dated 29.03.2018, 29.01.2019 and 26.02.2021 are assailed in these 3 appeals. 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that Appellant Company manufactures elevators and also provides service, installation and commissioning of elevators. For both the purposes of manufacturing and installation, it had obtained Exc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unal but the same had not yielded any fruitful result since the Commissioner had conformed the entire demand in its totality along with interest etc. in the said de novo adjudication order and also adjudicated SCN dated 10.03.2015 for Financial Year 2013-14 that was also disposed of by way of conformation of demand etc. In the second round of litigation initiated by the Appellant before this Tribunal, the said adjudication order was set aside on 15.03.2023. In the mean while three other periodic demand notices, as stated in the first paragraph were issued under Sec 73 (1A) and adjudicated by way of conformation of demand through three other separate adjudication orders which are assailed here in these appeals. 4. During course of hearing o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee should not form part of the 'value' for the purpose of determination of the Service Tax liability and in furtherance to such principle, Appellant had duly discharged Service Tax liability for which order conforming imposition of duty along with interest and penalties on the gross amount charged is required to be set aside. 5. In response to such submissions, Learned Authorised Representative for the Respondent-Department argued in support of the reasoning and rationality of the order passed by the Commissioner and has drawn our attention to the fact that there is clear finding of the Commissioner that noticee had adopted different valuation methods at different stages as per its suitability and no proof that VAT has been paid on the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iation by the adjudicating authority, could not stand Judicial scrutiny. 7. This being the observation of this Tribunal we are of the considered view that the findings of the Learned Commissioner in her three orders under challenge herein that segregation is not possible is apparently based on her observation made at para 5.4 of the order which appears to be prejudiced against the Appellant for the reason that in the earlier de novo adjudication, the entire demand was re-conformed by the Commissioner which was accepted like a precedent by her and she took up the rest of the processes only to quantify the demand. For a better clarity para 5.4 is reproduced below: "I find that the Order-in-Original No. 12/ST- 1/RS/2014 dated 28.02.2014 wit....