9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 345X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of Advantage Media Consultant (2008 (3) TMI 59 - CESTAT KOLKATA) holds so. - judgment has been upheld by the Hon’ble apex Court by dismissing Civil Appeal filed by the Revenue after condoning the delay which would mean that the value received for the taxable purpose needs to be considered as cum-tax amount if the service tax is not charged. - impugned order is correct - Decided against Revenue. - Appeal No: ST/379/2011, Cross-Objection No: ST/CO-77/2011 - Final Order Nos. A/2687-2688/2015-WZB/STB - Dated:- 12-8-2015 - Shri M V Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical) For the Petitioner : Ms. P.V. Sekhar, Dy. Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent : Shri Harish Bindumadhavan, Advocate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Central Excise 2007 (210) ELT 183 (SC) will be applicable and the ratio is exclusion of duty element from the price will arise only if manufacturer is able to prove that the price of goods includes excise duty payable. 5. The learned counsel would rely upon the same judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Advantage Media Consultant (supra) and would submit that this judgment has been upheld by the apex Court by dismissing the civil appeals filed by the Revenue. He would also rely upon Trade Notice No. 20/2002 dated 23/05/2002 issued by Delhi II Commissionerate wherein it was clarified that the amounts recovered will be taken to constitute amounts inclusive of service tax. 6. On consideration of the submissions made by both the side ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vider, for the service provided or to be provided is inclusive of service tax payable, the value of such taxable service shall be such amount as with the addition of tax payable, is equal to the gross amount charged. 4. This principle has all along been relevant and had to be applied. In the circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order and we reject both the appeals filed by the Revenue. The Cross Objection in respect of S.T. Appeal No. 55/06 is also disposed. 7. The ratio of the said judgment has been upheld by the Hon ble apex Court by dismissing Civil Appeal filed by the Revenue after condoning the delay which would mean that the value received for the taxable purpose needs to be considered as cum-tax a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
