2011 (10) TMI 103

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... facts. Inasmuch as learned advocate agrees with the learned SDR that no service tax was paid by them on said activity of laying down of pipe lines and as such, question of rebate on such activity does not arise. - Decided that set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority - appellants are at liberty to produce evidence before the original adjudicating a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... construction of boundary wall, however, no tax was being paid by them on activity of laying down of Hume pipes. 3. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that as the laying down of pipes was not a commercial activity of M/s. Kumbi Chini Mills and the same was being done by M/s. Singh Technocrats as a social activity for developing the area in their colony. In such a scenario, no .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ervice tax stands paid by them on such activity and accordingly the learned advocate submits that the same is not payable in terms of the Tribunal order in Larsen and Toubro. 5. Learned SDR appearing for the Revenue have agreed that the issue stands discussed by the lower authorities from the different angle and on wrong appreciation of facts. Inasmuch as learned advocate agrees with the learned .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X