9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (6) TMI 107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emand - Appeal Nos. S/80 & 131/2007/MAS - F.O.Nos. 808 & 809/2007 & S.O.No. 670/2007 - Dated:- 29-6-2007 - [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. - After examining the records and hearing both sides, we are of the view that the assessee's appeal requires to be disposed of. Accordingly, after dispensing with predeposit, we take up the appeal for final disposal. At this stage, we take note ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stribution against payment of price below MRP and the latter, in turn, sold the cards to subscribers at MRP. The appellants paid Service tax on the sale price received by them. In the relevant show-cause notice, the Department alleged that Service tax was liable to be paid on MRP as gross amount under Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994. This demand was contested. In adjudication authority confirm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vertising (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad [2007 (5) S.T.R. 312 (Tri.- Bang.)], wherein it was held that the actual amount received by the service provider for the service rendered to his customer would alone constitute the value of taxable service for the purpose of Section 67 and that any amount due from the customer would not be includible in the taxable value. Ld. S.D.R., on the other hand, reitera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue has no case that any of these elements is applicable to the appellants. The Tribunal's decision in Tempest Advertising (supra) is clearly in support of the appellants. 6. It is true that the service rendered by the appellants by way of sale of pre-paid SIM cards was ultimately received by the subscribers. However, where the law prescribes the value of taxable service to be the g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
