Part IV of the Application and the demand notice dated 07.12.2018, is 01.07.2011 to 30.06.2016, being the dates of invoices. The invoices produced by the OC with the Application indicate that these are in respect of security services provided at various sites of the CD such as Bhoiwada, Byculla, Navi Mumbai, etc. However, in the demand notice, the OC has claimed payments in respect of different sites such as Dhule, Crown Mill, Malad, Sales Bhoiwada, Airoli, Koperkhairne, Powai, Worli, Saat Raasta, Rehab Worli, Vadodara, Kalamboli, Byculla, Seawood and Pune. In the reply to Section 8 notice dated 17.12.2018, the CD has taken a defence that the invoices claimed in the demand notice were not certified as per the LOIs and that there is no admitted liability by the CD. It is seen from the LOIs dated 29.10.2011; 05.09.2012; and 01.01.2013 that the invoices raised by the OC were to be certified by competent authority such as Time Officer, Project Accountant and Project Manager, upon submission of documents like attendance certificate proving deputation of security guards on a given day; workmen-wise details of PF; ESIC; and service tax challan of the previous month, acknowledged by the authorities along with a certification by a chartered accountant of the current month’s invoice. The CD has contended that without the above, the amounts could not have been ascertained for release to the OC. We find that the OC has not disputed the agreed terms and conditions as mentioned in the LOI, rather accepted the same under para 11 of its rejoinder, wherein the OC has stated that though it was agreed between the parties that there are separate invoices and LOI of each site, it should be treated as one contract/transaction. Hence, we hold that in
