9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1282X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that:- The claim of the appellant assessee that the said amounts needs to be considered as cum tax amount the amount needs to be accepted and tax liability needs to be worked out for which factual matrix needs to be appreciated - Matter remanded. Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand. - ST/456 & 481/2008 - FINAL ORDER No. A/30772-30773/2018 - Dated:- 17-7-2018 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) and Mr. P. Venkata Subba Rao, Member (Technical) Shri B. Venugopal, Advocate for the Assessee. Shri Bhanu Kiran, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the Revenue. ORDER [Order per: M.V. Ravindran] These two appeals are directed against Order-in-Original No. 11/2008-ADJN (ST) dated 19.06.2008. Appeal No. ST/4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mers for loan purpose and also for insurance purpose during the period in question, but, definition of Business Auxiliary service during the period i.e. prior 09, September 2004 would not apply in this case. The amounts received from M/s Maruthi Udyog Ltd., is not taxable in the hands of the dealer is decided by this Bench in the case of The Mithra Agencies in Final Order No. A/30114/2018 dated 01.02.2018 and produced a copy of the said order. ii) As regards the confirmation of the demand for the period 10, September 2004 to January 2007, it is his submission that the said amount needs re-quantification by the Adjudicating Authority as he has not considered their pleas regarding the amounts received by them to be considered as cum tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... noticed that the facts which are present in this case in hand are identical to the facts in that case (Mithra Agencies) except the assessee appellant being different. While coming to a conclusion, that the service tax liability for the period July, to September, 2004, does not arise the Bench relied upon the various decisions in an identical issue on the amounts received from M/s Maruthi Udyog Limited. We do not find any reason to deviate from such a view already taken. Accordingly, the appeal of appellant is acceptable against the Adjudication order for the period July to August, 2004 and needs to be allowed we do so and the impugned order to that extent is set aside, as also the penalties on this count. 6. As regards the tax demand for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
