TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 1042X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Non-inclusion of cost of the material received from the service receivers in the gross value of the services provided - HELD THAT:- This issue is no more res integra in view of the decision of the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/S BHAYANA BUILDERS (P) LTD. OTHERS VERSUS CST, DELHI OTHERS. [ 2013 (9) TMI 294 - CESTAT NEW DELHI (LB)] in favour of the assessee. Hence, the demand of Service Tax on this issue cannot be sustained. The Ld. Adjudicating Authority had not given any finding on these issues that whether the value of pipes supplied by the recipient of service is to be included in the value of calculation of service tax or not - the Adjudicating Authority should have examined the matter afresh in detail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellant had paid the service tax and filed service tax returns from October 2006 onwards. While reconciling the amount received by the said service provider as per the P L account, Ledger and Bank Statement with amount shown in ST-3 returns, it was observed that the appellant has short paid the service tax of Rs. 22,45,365/ -on the differential gross value of Rs. 2,00,32,797/- for the period from 2005-06 to 2009-10. Further on pointed out by the Audit officers, the Appellant agreed to the objections and made payment of Rs. 3,39,395/-. Accordingly show cause notice dated 19.10.2010 was issued to the appellant demanding Service tax of Rs. 22,45,365/- under Commercial or Industrial Construction Service. The Adjudicating authority while conf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. After going through the Adjudication order and the show cause notice along with Annexure, we find that the appellant had taken a definite stand before the Original Adjudicating Authority that they are not required to discharge the service tax on the pipe which are supplied by the service recipient during providing of services. Since the original adjudicating authority decided the matter on limitation and dropped the quantum of demand, appellant not challenged the said finding before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). 7. First issue is non-inclusion of cost of the material received from the service receivers in the gross value of the services provided. We find that this issue is no more res integra in view of the decision of the Larger ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
