9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 871X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the period of exemption. To that extent, we hold that the appellants have made out a case in the ROM application. Levy of tax - direct purchase of products made by the applicants from RMP - Held that: - there is no error apparent on the face of the record on this point Computation of liability to the extent the consideration is received by the applicants to be taken as inclusive of tax - Held that: - duty or tax liability is to be worked out from the amounts/consideration received holding the same as cum-tax consideration. To that extent we hold that the applications for ROM need to be allowed. The tax liability is upheld interest but the same needs to be worked out - applications for Rectification of Mistake are disposed off. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he applicants being small service providers are entitled for threshold exemption as per Notification 8/2008-ST. (d) No service tax can be imposed on the direct purchase of products made by the applicants from RMP. (e) Computation of liability is incorrect to the extent of consideration received by the applicant should be taken as inclusive of taxes. 3. Learned DR. would submit that all these points were raised by the appellants before the first appellate authority and the findings recorded by the first appellate authority at paragraph 6.8, 6.9 and 6.10 are self explanatory and hence there is no error apparent on the face of the records 4. We have considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. 5. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... finition of Business Auxiliary Service under Section 65(105) (zzb) read with Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994 When on the issue involved in this group of cases, there were two views in the Department itself/ it cannot be said that on the question as to whether the activity of the assesses was taxable under Section read with Section 65 (19) of the Finance Act, 1994, there was no scope for doubt. It can be seen from the above that there was no findings recorded by the adjudicating authority or the first appellate authority; on the contrary, in the cases In hand both the lower authorities have recorded that the appellants had not produced the records from 2008. Appellants had not informed the department as to the activities undert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
