TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 142X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uced the documents in support of their contention of sale of goods. It is seen that the appellant had arrived at a notional percentage of 15% of the contract value - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assesse. - Appeal No.ST/S/152/2011 & ST/230/2011 - FINAL ORDER No.40847/2014 - Dated:- 24-11-2014 - Shri P.K. Das and Shri R. Periasami, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Krishnan Srinivasan, Sr. Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Parmod Kumar, JC (AR) JUDGEMENT Per P.K. Das; 1. As the issue involved lies in a narrow compass, after disposing the stay application, we take up the appeal for hearing. We find that in the appellant's own case, for the earlier period, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal at the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... document exhibits that the appellant had supplied elevators/escalators followed by commissioning and installation thereof. The adjudication order does not reveal whether it was the only document available as is appearing at page 56 gives rise to demand or any other contract that was executed during the period under adjudication. So also it appears that a summary of examination was made by the adjudicating authority with a determination that service tax shall be leviable without examination of the factual aspect of the quantum of goods involved in respect of each contract executed. We may make it clear that Finance Act, 1994 is not commodity taxation law. It requires service declared as taxable service by law is to be taxed to the extent pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otional percentage of 15% of the contract value. The Tribunal already decided that this issue would be required to be examined by the adjudicating authority in detail. 5. In view of the above discussion, we set aside the impugned order and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide afresh after examining the documents with the earlier remand order. Ld. Senior Advocate placed the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in their own case in W.P (Civil) No.232 of 2005 dt. 6.5.2014 which would be examined by the learned adjudicating authority in de novo adjudication. It is needless to say that the adjudicating authority shall give proper opportunity of hearing before decision. As the matter is pending for a long time, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
