9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 659X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of cost by a service recipient to the provider of the taxable construction service, being neither monetary or non-monetary consideration paid by or flowing from the service recipient, accruing to the benefit of service provider, would be outside the taxable value or the gross amount charged, within the meaning of later expression in Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994; and the value of free suppl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Appellant : None For the Respondent : Shri R K Das, AC (AR) ORDER Per: P.R. Chandrasekharan: The appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. PIII/VM/252/2009 dated 26.11.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune III. Vide the impugned order, the ld. lower appellate authority has rejected the appeal filed by the appellant M/s. M.B. Chitale Constructions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld. Asst. Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue seeks to support the impugned order and reiterates the findings given therein. 4. We have considered the submissions of the ld. AR and the grounds urged in the appeal memo. 4.1. We find that the issue involved herein has already been decided by a Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bhayana Builders P. Ltd. Ors. Service Tax Appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Larger Bench held that the benefit of Notification no. 15/04-ST and Notification 1/06-ST would be available even if value of the goods and materials supplied by the service recipient are not included for the purpose of computation of the abatement provided under these Notifications. The issue involved in the present case is also identical and therefore, the appellant would be eligible for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
