TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 797X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eans and M/s A.K.M (MBD) - non-inclusion value of free supply material while calculating the tax liability - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute in the impugned case that the contracts entered into by the appellants involve material as well as service component. As such, the service rendered by the appellants is taxable only from 01.06.2007. Moreover, in view of the decision in COMMISSIONER OF SERVI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugned order is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside - Appeal allowed. - HON BLE Mr. S. S. GARG, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And HON BLE Mr. P. ANJANI KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Umesh Sarwal, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Aneesh Dewan, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER Per : P.ANJANI KUMAR The appellants, M/s Ahluwalia Contracts (India) Limit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith equal penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act and penalty, of Rs.200 per day or 2% of service tax, under Section 76 and a penalty of Rs.5000/- under Section 77 ibid. Hence, this appeal. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the Department has issued a total of seven show-cause notices, dated 18.03.2009, 24.03.2009, 14.03.2011 (three SCNs), 24.10.2011 and 27.09.2011; all the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notices dated 18.03.2009, 24.03.2009 and 14.03.2011 (three) and 27.09.2011 under SVLDRS; the Department cannot invoke the extended period in the subsequent show-cause notices. 3. Learned Authorized Representative reiterates the findings of OIO and submits that the contention that extended period cannot be invoked as the Department has the knowledge of the affairs of the company, is incorrect i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en issued to the appellants on the very same issue and on the basis of very same objections raised by the Audit. It is not permissible in view of the Hon ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Nizam Sugars Factory- 2006 (197) ELT 465 (SC). It was followed in a number of decisions by the Hon ble High Courts and the Tribunal. For these reasons, we find that the impugned order is not sustainable a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
