Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2008 (7) TMI 103

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Dated:- 29-7-2008 - Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) (Final Order No. A/1459/WZB/Ahd/2008-CII dt. 29.7.2008 certified on 31.7.2008 in Appeal No. ST/59/2008) Shri Vipul Kandhar, CA for Appellant Shri S.R. Prasad, SDR for Respondent [Order per Archana Wadhwa Member (Judicial)] - The brief facts of the case are that the appellant were holding Service Tax registration for providing Consulting Engineering service. The appellant has filed a refund claim for Rs.3,11,234/- on 24/6/2005 on the ground that the services Survey and mapping was not covered under the service tax net till inclusion in the Budget 2005-06 whereas they have wrongly deposited service tax towards such service for the period May, 2004 to Sept .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hat service tax was not recovered from their clients. Reliance has been placed on the precedent decisions of the Tribunal. 3. Admittedly, the contract entered by the appellant with M/s. GAIL is inclusive of all taxes, duties WCT etc. As during the relevant period, the appellant was paying service tax in question, it is reasonable to presume that the same was taken into account for quoting the contract price. As such it is now for the assessee to establish that such service tax, so paid by the assessee, was not part of the total service contract and does not stand recovered by them from their customers When the value of contract is inclusive of taxes and the appellant was paying the tax in question, the same leads to inevitable conclusi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pes of taxes. Further in the case of M/s AL Steel Industries Vs. CCE, Cochin (2003 (57 RLT 667 (CEGAT-Ban.)=2003 (161) ELT 628 (Tri. Bang.)], the 'Tribunal held that the contract value didnot include excise duty by referring to the various clauses of the contract and the tender floated by Electricity Board, which provided for quoting prices with split up details of ex-work price, packing and forwarding, excise duty, sales tax, freight etc. As such from the price factor placed before the Tribunal, it was concluded that the appellant's claim for excise duty was not accepted by the Electricity Board and the price approved did not include any provision for excise duty. It was in these circumstances, the Tribunal held that the contra .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates