TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 44X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RESENTED BY: S/Shri P.K. Sahu with Prashant Shukla, Advocates, for the Petitioner. S/Shri A.S. Chandiok, ASG, Mukesh Anand, with Sonia Mathur, Standing Counsels, for the Respondent. [Order]. - By this writ petition preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the miscellaneous order ST/41/10 dated 6th May, 2010 passed by the Larger Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short 'tribunal') and to clarify the 46th Constitution Amendment to the extent it has no relevance for imposition of service tax. 2. A brief narration of the facts shall subserve the purpose for adjudicating the controversy that has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isions of Finance Act, 1994. 12. On the aforesaid legal and Constitutional background as well for the reasons stated, the Reference may be answered stating that turnkey contracts can be vivisected and discernible service elements involved therein can be segregated and classifiable as well as valued for levy service tax under Finance Act, 1994 provided such services are taxable services as defined by that Act and depending on the facts and circumstances of each case, services by way of advice, consultancy or technical assistance in the case of turnkey contract shall attract service tax liability.' 6. After answering the issue referred to, the Special Bench directed that the appellants' cases be sent back to the concerned Benches for disposal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ir Ahmedabad, (1976) 1 SCC 671; K. Shekar Vs. Indiramma, (2002) 3 SCC 586; and Pradip Chandra Parija Vs. Pramod Chandra Patnaik, (2002) 144 ELT 7 (SC). 11. Learned counsel for appellant has also drawn inspiration from the logic given in J.K. Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mysore, (2006) 199 ELT 413 (Tri.-Bang.). Mr. A.S. Chandiok, learned ASG appearing for Union of India and Mr. Mukesh Anand, Standing Counsel for the Department of Customs and Excise submitted that the concept of locus was not the issue when the matter was debated on the earlier occasion and that apart, the same is not the preliminary objection of respondents. It is urged by them that what was objected by way of preliminary objection is in a different realm and, therefore, the dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
