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

M/s Skyway Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-I

2018 (1) TMI 270 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Classification of services - whether the services rendered by the appellant in respect of 52 contracts entered with various Govt. authorities need to be taxed under Maintenance & Repair Service (MMRS)/ Commercial & Industrial Construction Service (CICS)/Erection, Commissioning or Installation Services (ECIS)? - Held that: - It is on record and undisputed that the adjudicating authority has specifically held that all the 52 contracts which has been executed by the appellants are with material - L .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hat: - the law is fairly settled by the judicial pronouncement on this point i.e. the adjudicating authority cannot classify services if it is not proposed in the SCN. - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. ST/87466/13 - A/91785/2017 - Dated:- 27-12-2017 - Shri M. V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Shri C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri Vipin Jain, Advoate with Ms. Isha Shah, Advocate for Appellant Shri M.K. Sarangi, Jt. Commissioner (AR) for Respondent ORDER Per: .....

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 of Greater Mumbai, MIDC, KDMC, Surat Municipal Corporation and Construction or renovation of Sewerage Treatment Plant or Waste Purification Plant for Municipal Corporation of the State of Gujarat. A show-cause notice has been issued to the appellant claiming the classification of the services rendered by the appellant as Management, Maintenance & Repair Service (MMRS)/ Commercial & Industrial Construction Service (CICS)/Erection, Commissioning or Installation Services (ECIS). The appel .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cases, he has upheld the allegation in the show-cause notice. It is noticed that the adjudicating authority has confirmed the demand raised along with interest and did not impose any penalty. The demands were confirmed against only 52 contracts covering 3 show-cause notices. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant draw our attention to the facts of the case and took us through the entire case records. It is his submission that the adjudicating authority in the impugned order at para 5 in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ourt in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. 2015 (34) STR 913. It is his submission that now the law is well settled hence, pre and post introduction of works contract services, the activity of the appellant should be covered under works contract service and cannot be vivisected for the confirmation of tax liability under various services. He also would bring to our notice that the adjudicating authority has erred in stating in the OIO that the Tribunal was in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

India Ltd. Vs. CCE 2001 (132) ELT 134 (Tri) (f) Neolux India Pvt. Ltd. 2001 (128) ELT 298 (Tri) affirmed by the Apex Court in 2007 (209) ELT 11 (SC). (g) Bright Brothers 1991 (52) ELT 385 (Tri) affirmed by Apex Court in 2000 (116) ELT A67 (SC). (h) Toyo Engineering India Ltd. 2006 (201) ELT 513 (SC) (i) Ballarpur Industries Ltd. 2007 (215) ELT 489 (SC) (j) Warner Hindustan Ltd. 1999 (113) ELT 24 (SC). 5. Learned Authorized Representative (AR) on the other hand would draw our attention to the va .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ase of Indo Hong Kong Industries (P) Ltd. 2017 (4) GSTL 257 (Tri-Del) has held that the adjudicating authority is empowered to change the classification other than as present in the show-cause notice. He would also place reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CST, New Delhi Vs. Air Charter Services Pvt. Ltd. 2017 (5) GSTL 107 (Tri-Del) for the same proposition. He would submit that the adjudicating authority s reasoning are quite clear and he reiterates the same. 6. In rejoinder .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

for consideration is whether the services rendered by the appellant in respect of 52 contracts entered with various Govt. authorities need to be taxed under MMRC/CICS/ECIS or otherwise. It is on record and undisputed that the adjudicating authority has specifically held that all the 52 contracts which has been executed by the appellants are with material. Learned Counsel was correct in brining to our notice that the said findings of the adjudicating authority that the appellant is eligible for a .....

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
 


Share:            

|| 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