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

M/s Bata India Ltd. Versus CCE, ST Delhi

2017 (11) TMI 1182 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Service of repairing of footwear - sale or service? - appellant claim is that they were paying VAT on the full amount of income so generated and that they have supplied the material wherever necessary to complete the repairing service - Department, however, took the view that the activity undertaken by the appellant was in the nature of service covered under the heading 'management, maintenance or repair service' - Held that: - such activity cannot be considered purely as sale of repair material .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s and materials should have been availed - Held that: - the appellant has failed to substantiate that they have fulfilled these conditions. They have also not placed any evidence to justify the benefit of notification - benefit rightly denied. - Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - ST/52249/2014- [DB] - ST/A/57943/2017-CU[DB] - Dated:- 17-11-2017 - Dr. Satish Chandra, President And Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Shri Manish Gaud, Advocate for the appellant Shri Amresh Jain .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ty on the income realized from this service. But the appellant claim is that they were paying VAT on the full amount of income so generated and that they have supplied the material wherever necessary to complete the repairing service. It was further claimed by them that the activity of the appellant was essentially that of sale of material required in the repair of footwear such as soles, Velcro, scrap, elastic etc. While undertaking the said sale, the appellant also performed the incidental act .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n 65 (64) ibid. Accordingly, show cause notice dated 24/10/11 was issued to the appellant and the impugned order was passed confirming the demand of Service Tax amounting to ₹ 46,53,610/- along with interest and penalties under various Sections. Aggrieved by the impugned order the present appeal has been filed. 4. With the above background we heard Shri Manish Gaud, Ld. Advocate for the appellant as well as Shri Amresh Jain, Ld. DR for the Department. 5. The argument advanced by Shri Manis .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

der Works Contract Service falling under Section 65 (105) (zzzza). The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Larsen and Toubro - 2015 (39)STR 913 (SC) has held that no Service Tax can be charged under WCS for the period prior to 1/6/2007. Accordingly, out of the demand raised by the Department in the present case, for the period April, 2006 to September, 2010, the demand prior to 01/06/1007 will have to be set aside. iii. In any case, the appellant claimed that they are eligible for the benefit o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ull value by mistake, that doesn t justify non-payment of Service Tax. He argued that the activity performed is in the nature of repair services and service tax will be liable to be paid. He also added that the appellant will not be eligible for benefit of Notification No.12/2003 for failure to satisfy the conditions specified therein. 7. We have heard both sides and perused the record. The appellant is in the business of footwear. They have also undertaken the activity of repair of footwear. Th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

issued is only for gross charges for repair of footwear payable by the customer. It does not specifically mention sale of any material as is required for availment of benefit of Notification No. 12/2003. 8. He has recorded detailed findings in para 17.4 of the impugned order. After carefully considering the same in relation to the relevant records, we are of the view that such activity cannot be considered purely as sale of repair materials but is an activity covered under sec 65 (105) (zzzg) 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

 

 

 

 

 

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.