9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2010 (11) TMI 1004X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent : Sumit Kumar, DR ORDER D.N. PANDA: Ld. Counsel Shri S.K.Sarwal submits that as against the service tax demand of ₹ 10,62,65,767/-, an amount of ₹ 2,83,91,383/- has been ordered to be appropriated under para 42 of the impugned order. He draws our attention to page 4 of the Adjudication order to demonstrate that an amount of ₹ 1,20,98,505/- has not been considered for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee shall be included in the gross value of taxable service provided in view of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Jaihind Projects Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Ahmedabad 2010 (18) S.T.R. 650 (Tri.-Ahmd.). Therefore, this appellant should discharge its entire service tax liability without any concession. 4. Heard both sides and perused the record. 5. We are conscious that Revenu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ordinate legislation. 6. Having heard both sides on their rivalry contentions as above, prima facie, it appears that balance of convenience tilts in favour of Revenue, in view of their success before Tribunal in the case cited by them. Being guided by the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Asst. Collector of Central Excise vs. Dunlop India Ltd. and Others 1985 (19) E.L.T.22 (S.C.) and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsideration in view of the decision of the Tribunal in respect of supply of material by contractee decided in favour of Revenue. Also there is no material before us to appreciate any undue hardship or financial hardship to the appellant. Thus, aforesaid order has been passed considering totality of facts and circumstances of the case.
Dictated and Pronounced in the open Court. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
