2018 (2) TMI 826

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... them to their employees - Held that: - The quantification of non-monetary consideration should be based on specific and tangible evidence - In the present case, there is no non-monetary consideration or any extra payment by the employees which can be added to the taxable value. The appellants received signals and distributed the same. There is no allegation that such consideration has been specif .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . They have collected consideration from the employees for such distribution of TV signals. The dispute in the present case is relating to valuation of such consideration. The Revenue entertained a view that the appellants incurred much higher expenditure in receiving the signal from MSO whereas they have collected much lesser amount for the same service rendered by them to their employees. In oth .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the cost of service which the appellants received from MSO is directly relatable to the distribution of signals to their employees as such. 4. We have heard both sides and perused records. 5. Revenue relied on the provisions of Rule 5 to hold that the cost incurred by the service provider should form part of the value. We find that the appellants collected consideration for providing service .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X