TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 12/2003 dated 01.07.2003 in respect of repair and maintenance services rendered for damaged sea containers, and whether the value of materials used in such repair work could be included in the taxable value.
Analysis: The invoices produced by the appellant showed the container numbers, labour charges and material charges separately, along with the service tax payable on the labour component. These invoices sufficiently established the nature of the services and the materials used in the repair activity. The Board clarification dated 22.09.2013, referring to the same notification, and the Supreme Court decision in Jain Brothers supported the position that the cost of goods supplied during repair cannot be added to the value of the taxable service where the exemption applies. The fact that the Revenue had dropped similar demands in the appellant's other units on the same issue also reinforced the claim.
Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to the exemption, and the inclusion of the material component in the taxable value was not justified. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed.
TaxTMI 
