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 waives duty deposit requirement for appellants in water pipeline construction case, citing recent decisions.</h1> <h3>LARSON & TUBRO LTD. Versus CST, AHMEDABAD</h3> LARSON & TUBRO LTD. Versus CST, AHMEDABAD - 2009 (90) RLT 207 (CESTAT - Ahmd.) Issues:1. Whether laying down of pipeline for water supply by Gujrat Water Supply & Sewerage Board falls under 'Commercial and Industrial services' for service tax liability.2. Challenge of the stay order directing deposit of Rs. 40 lakhs by the appellants.3. Applicability of Tribunal decisions on similar issues to modify the stay order.Issue 1: Definition of 'Commercial and Industrial services' for service tax liabilityThe Tribunal directed the appellants to deposit Rs. 40 lakhs pending the decision on whether laying down a water supply pipeline qualifies as 'Commercial and Industrial services' under Section 65(25)(b) of the Finance Act, 2005. The Tribunal observed the issue as arguable and not conclusive at that stage, hence the partial deposit order.Issue 2: Challenge of the stay orderThe appellants challenged the Tribunal's stay order in the High Court through a writ petition. The High Court disposed of the petition by allowing the appellants to approach the Tribunal to point out any errors on record. Subsequently, the appellants filed a modification application seeking to dispense with the deposit condition based on Tribunal decisions and legal precedents.Issue 3: Applicability of Tribunal decisions on similar issuesThe appellants argued that recent Tribunal decisions, such as the Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. case, have established that laying down a water pipeline does not constitute a commercial or industrial activity subject to service tax. They also cited the Hindustan Lever Ltd. case, emphasizing that subsequent court decisions should form the basis for modification of stay orders. Referring to the Tata Chemical Ltd. case and the Bombay High Court judgment in Sarla Performance Fibers Ltd. case, the appellants contended that modification of stay orders is within the Tribunal's inherent power.In light of the precedents and the Tribunal's decision in the Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. case, the Tribunal found that the issue regarding the water pipeline construction had already been addressed. Consequently, the Tribunal modified the earlier order and waived the requirement for the appellants to deposit the duty or penalty amount. The modification application was disposed of accordingly, emphasizing the applicability of recent Tribunal decisions and legal principles in altering stay orders.
TaxTMI 