Held - The perusal of a case records shows for the identical issue, for the period August, 2011 to February, 2012 and April 2012 to July, 2017; August, 2012 to April, 2012, April 2013 to May, 2013 to June, 2014, three Show cause notices were issued to the appellants and those were adjudicated on 9th July, 2015 by a common adjudication order. Therefore, it is not correct to say that there is any suppression on the part of the appellant as .....

Held - The Appellant has not discharged service tax on the fixed facility charges being of bonafide belief that the said fixed facility is installed for the Appellant's use and benefit and they are not providing any service to the client and the activity of installing and maintaining fixed facilities for supplying of oxygen to the client do not fall under any category of service defined during the period prior to 01.07.2012 i.e. before introdu.....

Held - The period of dispute in the present appeal is from 01.10.2008 to 31.03.2013. The show cause notice was issued on 16.04.2014. The appellant had in the ST-3 returns clearly mentioned about availing the benefit of the Exemption Notifications. The Department cannot, therefore, contend that the appellant had suppressed any fact, much less with an intent to evade payment of service tax.

It is, therefore, clear that even when an assesse.....

Held - A perusal of the records makes it clear that the method of valuation adopted by the appellants and the elements of cost of processes included in the assessable value were known to the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities through price lists and cost working sheet made available. It is well settled that when the same facts are known to both sides, it is not open for one side to allege that suppression of facts have been made by the .....