Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

CCE, Ludhiana Versus M/s. Surinder Kumar

2015 (10) TMI 295 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Industrial construction service - benefit of abatement of 67% under Notification NO.15/2004-ST - Held that:- We are not in agreement with the contention that the services rendered at the residential houses in which employees of the respondent reside would be tantamount to rendering industrial construction service. Similarly an amount of ₹ 5,71,646/- received for painting of goods /material/other article other than building and civil structures would not be part of industrial construction s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ession of facts, we find that the only ground to sustain this allegation is that the respondent did not file ST-3 returns nor registered with the Service Tax department. However the Commissioner (Appeals) held that no service tax was liable. In the case of Continental Foundation Jt.Venture vs. CCE, Chandigarh-I- [2007 (8) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], the Supreme Court has in effect held that mere omission to give correct information is not suppression of facts unless it was deliberate to st .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

was payable, we are of the view that the allegation of suppression/wilful mis-statement is not sustainable as a consequence of which the demand is rendered time barred. - Decided against Revenue. - Appeal No.ST/466/2009-CU (DB) - FINAL ORDER NO.52392/2015 - Dated:- 9-7-2015 - Mr.R.K.Singh, Member (Technical) and Ms.Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial), JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri M.R.Sharma, AR For the Respondent: None ORDER PER: R.K.SINGH Revenue is in appeal against Order-in-Appeal dated 12 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ting of goods/material/other article other than building and civil structures. This activity was not covered under the category of Industrial Construction Service. As regards the remaining amount, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the benefit of abatement of 67% under Notification NO.15/2004-ST and the remaining 33% was within ambit of exemption limit. 2. Revenue has contended that painting of residential property of Nestle which is a commercial concern should be covered under the category of i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ue. We are not in agreement with the contention that the services rendered at the residential houses in which employees of the respondent reside would be tantamount to rendering industrial construction service. Similarly an amount of ₹ 5,71,646/- received for painting of goods /material/other article other than building and civil structures would not be part of industrial construction service. Regarding remaining amount, we agree with the Revenue that painting of walls of the floor of comm .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version