2008 (10) TMI 167

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... der of the Commissioner (A) - department had not challenged the said appellate order and both Commissioner (A) and the original authority had found impugned amount not to be includable in the taxable value - prima facie the Commissioner could not have validly passed an order in revision holding a contrary view – stay grnated - S/144/2008 - 895/2008 - Dated:- 3-10-2008 - Shri P. Karthikeyan, Mem .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... es and rent collected by it in the taxable value. The Commissioner (A) had remanded the matter to the original authority to verify if the assessee had collected any amount towards administrative charges and rent in excess of what they had actually incurred. The original authority found in remand proceedings that the appellants had not collected any amount in excess of the actuals. The impugned ord .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d been invoked. The demand therefore was barred by limitation. 3. Ld. SDR submits that the revision order was validly passed. The Commissioner was competent to revise an order of a subordinate authority in exercise of powers vested in him under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994. She reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 4. After careful consideration of the case records and the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X