TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1358X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n and finding" portion of the impugned order, there is no discussion or finding on the appellant's pleadings/contentions with regard to the non-taxability of the service rendered to IIT Delhi, National Press Centre, Dame Depot of Delhi Metro etc. The observation of the adjudicating authority that " in this case the dispute does not relate to the services and service tax payable thereon but is solely revolves around the issue of short payment of service tax due to non-inclusion of cost of raw-materials and goods supplied free by the recipients of service " is totally absurd because the dispute clearly relates to the taxability of the service rendered as the appellant had contended that the projects named above were exempt from payment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the material supplied free of cost by the service recipients was not added to the assessable value. 2. The appellant has contended that (i) it was rendering services under composite contracts and paying service tax under composition scheme for works contract service, (ii) It had rendered service in relation to the following project which it claimed to be not liable to service tax:- Projects claimed exempt from service tax and included in earlier Show Cause Notice dated 25.11.2008 Name Date of LOI Amount received during April, 2010-March-2011 Reason for Exemption DDA Design Built 18.05.2002 Rs.68,30,000.00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In none of these projects there was any involvement of free supply of the material by the service recipients but the adjudicating authority has gone ahead to presume the presence of free supplies and denied the benefit of 67% abatement. 3. Ld. Departmental Representative on the other hand contended that the various projects claimed to be exempt did not fall under the exempted category but conceded that the adjudicating authority has not dealt with the contentions of the appellant. 4. We have considered the contentions of both sides. We have perused the impugned order and would like to reproduce the initial part of para 32 of the discussion and finding portion of the impugned order:- 32. I have carefully gone through the case re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wrong in observing that the value of free supplies has not been included in the assessable value thereby denying the benefit of 67% abatement under Notifications No. 15/2004 - ST, dated 10.09.2004 and No.1/2006 - ST, dated 01.03.2006 because there was no free supply of material by the service recipients. In the Show Cause Notice also it is nowhere stated that the service recipients had given free supplies to the appellant. Even in the adjudication order there is no evidence mentioned which was relied upon to arrive at a finding that there were free supplies of material by the service recipients. It is also seen that the adjudicating authority has recorded the submissions of the appellant that the projects mentioned above were exempt and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It seems that the discussion and finding portion of the impugned order is a shoddy and careless cut-and-paste job from another adjudication order which the adjudicating authority may have passed in relation to an earlier show cause notice which finds mention in the show cause notice dated 24.05.2012 related to the impugned order. There are some more such grave errors in the impugned order but we refrain from enumerating them all because what we have pointed out above is itself more than sufficient to infer that the impugned order is a product of complete non-application of mind on the part of the adjudicating authority who seems to have passed it in a state of delirium. Such conduct on the part of the adjudicating authority is too irres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
