TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 709X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ELHI HIGH COURT] has held that Rule 5 (1) to be ultra vires the provisions of Section 66 and 67 of the Finance Act, 1994. No judgment of the Apex Court staying or reversing this judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court or of any other high expressing a contrary view has been shown. - stay granted. - Appeal No. 56334 of 2013 - Misc. Order No. 50256/2014 - Dated:- 21-1-2014 - Shri G. Raghuram and Shri Rakesh Kumar, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Vineet Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Govind Dixit, Authorized Representative (DR) ORDER Per. Rakesh Kumar :- The appellant are a dealer of M/s Hero Honda Motors and are also engaged in servicing and repair of two wheeler motor vehicle as an authorized service station ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the above-mentioned service tax demand alongwith interest and imposed penalty of equal amount on them under Section 78 and also penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 @ Rs. 200/- per day for the period during which the failure to discharge the service tax liability in full continues. Against this order of the Commissioner, this appeals has been filed alongwith stay application. The miscellaneous application has been filed for early hearing of the stay application. 2. Heard both the sides in respect of stay application. 3. Shri Vineet Kumar Singh, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that when the appellant were charging separately for the service and for the spare parts and consumables used in servicing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the appellant is the gross amount charged and that in terms of Rule 5 of the Service Tax (determination of Value) Rules, 2006, where any expenditure or costs are incurred by the service provider in course of providing a taxable service, all such expenditure or costs shall be treated as consideration for the taxable service provided and shall be included in the value for the purpose of charging service tax. He, therefore, pleaded that the appellant have not been able to establish prima facie case in their favour and this is not the case for waiver from the requirement of pre-deposit. 5. We have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 6. It is not disputed that the appellant in their invoices show the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
