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

..... Appellant : Ms. Rukmani Menon, Advocate For The Respondent : Dr. J. Harish, Dy. Commissioner(AR) ORDER Per : B. RAVICHANDRAN These two appeals are on same issue though against two different impugned orders passed by Commissioner(Appeals), Mangalore. The dispute involved in the present case is with reference to valuation of service rendered by the appellant under the category of cable operator .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that whatever amount they paid to the MSO for receipt of TV signals have suffered tax at the hands of MSO. Whatever amount they received from employees for distribution of TV signals as a cable operator has also suffered service tax. Since they did not get any more consideration in any form from their employees, there is no question of additional val .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... efitted through such welfare measures by increased productivity cannot be considered for purpose of Section 67 of Valuation. 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 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X