2018 (10) TMI 1073

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... g Mishra (Advocate) & Ms Pragya Pandey (Advocate) for Appellant(s) Shri Rajeev Ranjan (Addl. Commr.) AR for Respondent(s) ORDER Per: Anil G. Shakkarwar Both the appeals are being disposed of by a common order as the issue involved is identical. Both the appellants are contractors for M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd. and providing various services to them. The Revenue got the figures of payment .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he consideration received by them from Hindalco and as reflected in ST-3 returns is on account of providing non-taxable services. He has placed a list of such non-taxable services provided by them to Hindalco before us today. As such, he submits that the Revenue has erred in considering the entire consideration as the value of the taxable services provided by them. 3. Learned Counsel further brou .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t of both the appellants for the period from April, 2005 to 31 March, 2010 is already exercised by Revenue by issue of other show cause notices in respect of consideration on account of amount of PF and Bonus. We find that the present show cause notices are reassessment of reassessment for the same period. We find that such authority is not available to Revenue. We note that Revenue should have ta .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X