9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 294X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ically mentioned and service tax paid already on the value of service. There is no justification In the stand of the Department that service tax is to be paid by including the value of the materials. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/62/2008-DB, ST/ 282/2009-DB, ST/ 283/2009-DB, ST/ 284/2009-DB, ST/285/2009-DB, ST/850/2009-DB, ST/852/2009-DB, ST/853/2009-DB, ST/851/2009-DB - 23303-23311 / 2017 - Dated:- 11-12-2017 - SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI V. PADMANABHAN, TECHNICAL MEMBER Ms. Neethu James. Advocate for the appellants Dr. J. Harish. Dy. Commissioner(AR), for the Revenue Per: V. PADMANABHAN These 9 appeals are filed against various Orders-in-Original on the same issue an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,237/- ₹ 15,47.73.655/- ₹ 5,16.57.786/- ₹ 11,41.54.119/- + ₹ 60.187/- Rs.99.82.689/- Penalty imposed Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil PARTICULARS ST//850/2009 ST//851/2009 ST//852/2009 ST//853/2009 Division Overhaul Division IMGT Division Helicopter Division Engine Division Period Involved 01.07.2007 to 31.03.2008 01.10.2006 to 21.03. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceedings were initiated for demanding service tax during the relevant period on the value of materials on which service tax was not paid by the appellant This resulted in the confirmation of demand for differential service tax The appellant had claimed the benefit of Notification No 12/2003-ST dt 26/02/2003 which allows deduction for the value of materials used in the repair and maintenance of machines subject to certain conditions The Department was of the view that the materials which were used in the process of repair were not SOLD Inasmuch as the service of aircrafts, helicopter etc were being done for Defence Department In such a view of the matter the benefit of Notification No 1 2/2003 was initially disallowed 3. Wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also submits that the appellants have not availed Cenvat credit. Therefore, we see that the appellant has fulfilled the conditions required to be fulfilled for availing the benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-S. T, dated 20-62003. We also take note of the fact that on the same activity for different periods, this Tribunal has already allowed the appeal in two cases. As regards the decision cited by the learned AR above in Safety Retreading Co, wherein according to the findings, the invoices unilaterally raised by the appellant indicated the break-up without substantiating the amount attributable to the value of goods supplied and therefore it was viewed that the same cannot be considered as documentary proof for purposes of Notification No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
