9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal, wherein it was held that when the assessee has paid tax under the State statute on the value of component of material used, service tax would be exigible only on the remaining value of services provided and allowed the appeal. The impugned order covers the period October 2008 to March 2009 on identical facts. There are no reason to deviate from the said order - impugned order set aside - appeal allowed. - SHRI P. DINESHA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND SHRI M. AJIT KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri N. Viswanathan, Advocate for the Appellant Shri R. Rajaraman, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER This appeal is filed by the appellant against Order in Appeal No. 44/2014 dated 28.4.2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the full value and suppressed the facts by showing the reduced value in the ST-3 returns and without showing the other details including the relevant notification with an intention to evade payment of service tax resulting in short-payment of service tax. Hence a statement of demand dated 22.4.2013 was issued. Earlier to this, the appellant had committed the same mistake, on being pointed out the appellants had paid the differential service tax but they did not pay the due interest thereon, for which a Show Cause Notice dated 331.5.2010 was issued. On the other hand, the appellant had filed a refund claim for the differential tax paid by them. The adjudicating authority had rejected the refund claim and demanded the due interest in two d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e reason stated by the department to demand duty was that their invoices did not show the value of the parts separately so as to meet the requirements of Notification No. 12/2003-ST. The learned counsel submitted that this issue is no longer res integra since the identical issue in the previous proceedings concerning the earlier period has been allowed by the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 42249 42250 of 2018 dated 7.8.2019. He prayed that the present appeal may be allowed by setting aside the impugned order. 6. Shri R. Rajaraman, learned AR supported the findings in the impugned order. 7. We have heard both sides and perused the records. We find that the same issue for the period up to September 2008 is covered by Final Orders N0 42 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
