TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tax dispute over services rendered resolved in favor of appellants, remanded for reevaluation</h1> <h3>M/s GS SONDH FABRICATORS Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, LUDHIANA</h3> M/s GS SONDH FABRICATORS Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, LUDHIANA - TMI Issues: Classification of services under commissioning and installation, compliance with Section 35-F of Central Excise Act, opportunity for hearing before adjudicating authorityIn this case, the appellants were engaged in various miscellaneous jobs for M/s Nestle India Ltd, such as unloading equipment, dismantling and reinstalling small equipment, and performing repair work on pipes. The Revenue attempted to tax these activities under the category of commissioning and installation based on payment data collected from M/s Nestle India Ltd, leading to a show cause notice being issued to the appellants. However, the appellants claimed they did not receive the notice and did not participate in the adjudication proceedings. The Commissioner (Appeals) required a pre-deposit of Rs.2 lakhs, which the appellants found challenging to pay as they were a small service provider. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act. The appellants argued that the services in question were not classifiable under Erection and Commissioning and that they were eligible for exemption as a small unit but were not given the opportunity to present their case before the authorities.Upon reviewing the submissions from both parties, the Judge determined that the appellants should be granted a hearing opportunity. The Judge set aside the previous order and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority. The appellants' counsel agreed to respond to the show cause notice within one month of receiving the order. Subsequently, the adjudicating authority was instructed to provide a chance for a personal hearing and make a fresh decision on the matter. As a result, both the stay application and appeal were resolved by overturning the initial order and sending the case back for reevaluation. The order was dictated and pronounced in an open court setting.
TaxTMI 