Just a moment...

Report
ReportReport
Welcome to TaxTMI

We're migrating from taxmanagementindia.com to taxtmi.com and wish to make this transition convenient for you. We welcome your feedback and suggestions. Please report any errors you encounter so we can address them promptly.

Bars
Logo TaxTMI
>
×

By creating an account you can:

Report an Error
Type of Error :
Please tell us about the error :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home /

2010 (11) TMI 1004

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....spondent : 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

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e 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 Revenue....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rdinate 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 ....