9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 1427X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tract or under the category of 'Erection, Commissioning or Installation Service'. Appellant is engaged in importing fabricated kitchen cabinets and installing the same in their customers premises. Since the appellant was not paying service tax, demand was made under the category of 'Erection, Commissioning or Installation Service' for the period 01.05.2006 to 31.05.2007. Thereafter, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and also imposed penalty under Section 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. However, as regarding penalty under Section 78 of the Act, the adjudicating authority refrained from imposing penalty on the ground that "there does not seem to be presence of guilty mind warranting imposition of penalty under Section 78". A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent Building Systems Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCT: 2022 (63) GSTL 257 (SC) where the issue was discussed in para 2 and findings recorded in para 12 reads as: "2. The issue involved in the present group of appeals is, "whether, service tax could be levied on Composite Works Contract prior to the introduction of the Finance Act, 2007, by which the Finance Act, 1994 came to be amended to introduce Section 65(105)(zzzza) pertaining to Works Contract?" 3-11. ...... 12. What was said by the Constitution Bench in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 and Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay North, Ahmedabad, AIR 1965 SC 1636, on the principle of stare decisis clearly bind us. The judgment of this Court in the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts that once respondent accepted the very same service provided by the appellant under works service contract after 01.06.2007, there is no reason or justification to confirm said activity under the category of 'Erection, Commissioning or Installation Service' up to 01.06.2007. 2.3 The learned counsel further relied upon the following decisions: * M. Srinagesh Hegde vs. CCE, Mangalore: 2024 (388) ELT 381 (Tri.-Bang.) * Continental Foundation Jt. Venture vs. CCE, Chandigarh-I: 2007 (216) ELT 177 (SC) * Padmini Products vs. CCE: 1989 (43) ELT 195 (SC) 3. The learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides. The issue is no more res integra and as evident from the sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
