9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 294X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er for the sake of convenience. The details are as under: - PARTICULARS ST//282/2009 ST//283/2009 ST//284/2009 ST//285/2009 ST//62/2008 Division Aircraft Division IMGT Division Helicopter Division Engine Division Aircraft Division Period Involved April 2006 to 2007 October 2004 to September 2006 April 2006 to March 2007 April 2006 to March 2007 July 2003 to March 2006 Show Cause Notice Date 24.1.2004 04.10.2007 _.02.2008 24.10.2007 04.10.2006 order-in-original No and Date 63/2008 dated 29.12.2008 65/2008 dated 29.12.2008 66/2008 dated 29.12.2008 69/2008 dated 29.12.2008 63/2007 dated 29.11.2007 total demand in the Cause Notice Rs.53,07.488/- - Rs. 6.34.64.942/- Rs. 19,08.840583/- + Rs. 21,84.14 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice 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. With the above background, we heard Ms Neetu James Advocate for the appellant as well as Dr J Harish Dy Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 12/2003. As regards Aggarwal Colour Advance Photo Systems, the same principle would apply. Moreover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
