2018 (5) TMI 214

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r the appellant despite notice. The matter has been listed on several occasions and all these occasions none appeared nor is there any request for adjournment. 2. The facts in brief as narrated by the Ld. for the Revneue are that the appellant are providing 'Security Agency Services' during the period 2001-2005 but failed to discharge service tax of Rs. 14,91,466/-. He has further submitted that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to 31.03.2005. The appellant had assailed the impugned order that the assessable value of the taxable service determined by the department is incorrect inasmuch as various expenditures incurred in providing the said service, ought to have been excluded from the scope of taxable value. We do not find merit in the said contention of the appellant in view of the aforesaid judgments cited by the Ld. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X