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>Tribunal rejects Revenue's bid to split service contracts for abatement calculation</h1> <h3>KUSHWAH ELECTRIC WORKS Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE</h3> KUSHWAH ELECTRIC WORKS Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE - 2013 (31) S.T.R. 83 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:Interpretation of service contracts involving multiple components for abatement calculation under Notification No. 1/2006-S.T.Analysis:The case involved the appellants providing services to oil companies for civil work specified in contracts. The Revenue contended that the contracts comprised three components: supply of manpower, construction of buildings, and maintenance/repair of buildings. A Show Cause Notice was issued, alleging that the appellants could only claim abatement for construction activity, not for other activities. The demand of Rs. 42,29,560/- was confirmed for the period 1-10-2003 to 31-10-2008.The Counsel for the appellant clarified that the manpower was utilized to execute the contract without a separate agreement for supplying manpower. He argued that the mentioned manpower in the contract was for labor used in construction work. Additionally, he highlighted that maintenance and repair activities were often part of the construction work, falling under industrial construction.On the other hand, the Ld. AR failed to demonstrate how the values for the three components were determined by the adjudicating authority in composite contracts. It was mentioned that disputes regarding material supplied free of cost were pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, with a stay granted against enforcing demands based on similar arguments presented in this case.After considering both arguments, the Tribunal did not agree with the Revenue's claim of splitting the service into three components. Regarding the material supplied free of cost issue, the Tribunal noted the pending disputes and the stay granted by the High Court. Consequently, the Tribunal waived the pre-deposit of dues arising from the order and imposed a stay on the collection of such dues during the appeal's pendency.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
