Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Manuals Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Bainanda Construction Co. Versus CCE & ST, Jaipur - I

2016 (9) TMI 1104 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Waiver of pre-deposit - Classification - site clearance, excavation, earth/sand filling etc. - whether to be classified as pre-commissioning activities under Commercial and Industrial Construction service or to be classified under Erection, Commissio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

find that in an identical case, this Tribunal in the case of Subhash Khandelwal & Sons vs. CCE, Jaipur - I [2011 (9) TMI 417 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] has allowed the appeal holding that pre-commissioning activities should be categorised as civil construc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d:- 22-8-2016 - Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) and Shri V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Ms. Rinky Arora, Advocate - for the Appellant. Shri K. Poddar, Authorized Representative (DR) for the Respondent. ORDER The appeal alongwith stay applica .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

pearing for the appellant submits that pursuant to the work order issued by M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL), the appellant had provided the services namely, site clearance, excavation, earth/sand filling etc., which are categorised un .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ioning and Installation service is not proper and justified in as much as the said service are relating to pre-commissioning activities, Learned Advocate has relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Subhash Khandelwal & Sons vs. CCE .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

by the Department for confirmation of the adjudged demand are barred by limitation of time. On the other hand, learned DR appearing for the respondent reiterates the finding recorded in the impugned order. 3. We have heard the learned Counsel for bot .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 
 


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version