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>Supreme Court dismisses case for delay, with representation from Tushar Mehta and Atul Shankar Vinod.</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS & SERVICE TAX KERALA Versus M/s. KUTTUKARAN TRADING VENTURES</h3> The Supreme Court dismissed the case after condoning the delay. Appellant was represented by Mr. Tushar Mehta and others, while the Respondent was ... Scope of the term Motor Vehicle with regard to repair and management service - whether repair of part of vehicle is amount of repair of vehicle as such - Exclusion of the maintenance and repair of motor vehicle from service tax - period up to 30.4.2006 - Extended period of limitation - appellant engaged in the business of reconditioning engines and parts thereof and repairs of other parts of vehicles of all brands - appellant contended that they were in bona fide believed that they had no tax liability in respect of the activities in question and hence did not include the relevant particulars in their returns - Supreme Court after condoning the delay dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue against the decision of High Court [2014 (5) TMI 1023 - KERALA HIGH COURT] wherein High Court held that if the motor vehicle was brought to the service centre of the appellant and they themselves had dismounted the engine and repaired it and then refitted it to the motor vehicle, they are entitled for the exclusion. But exclusion is not given by stating that dismounting has taken place at a different place. Such a view, according to us, cannot be accepted on account of the fact that motor vehicle apparently includes all its parts as well. Without its individual parts, it does not become a motor vehicle. Such part cannot be used for any other purpose as well and it is normally fitted to the same vehicle from which it is dismounted. Therefore, if any service centre or maintenance centre or workshop does maintenance or repairs to any part of the motor vehicle, it is also entitled to get the benefit of exclusion, as provided under Section 65(64) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Supreme Court dismissed the case after condoning the delay. Appellant represented by Mr. Tushar Mehta and others, while the Respondent represented by Mr. Atul Shankar Vinod and others.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
