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>Appeals remanded for fresh evaluation due to errors in calculations and maintenance contracts</h1> <h3>CCCE&ST, Visakhapatnam-II Versus C.L. Thomas, Proprietor, CLT Engineering Enterprises (Vice-Versa)</h3> CCCE&ST, Visakhapatnam-II Versus C.L. Thomas, Proprietor, CLT Engineering Enterprises (Vice-Versa) - TMI Issues involved:Appeal against Order-in-Appeal 10/2010 (V-II) ST, dt. 19.05.2010 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Visakhapatnam covering demands dropped and confirmed by the first appellate authority.Analysis:1. Issue 1 - Maintenance Contract Existence: The assessee had service tax registration for 'Maintenance or Repair Services.' The department issued a demand notice for &8377;26,14,277/- covering the period 2003-04 to 2007-08. The first appellate authority set aside the demand for the period prior to 16.06.2005, citing the absence of a maintenance contract. However, the Revenue contended that a maintenance and repair contract existed with M/s RINL, supported by a work order specifying Structural Repair Works. The Tribunal found errors in the first appellate authority's conclusion and remanded the matter for reevaluation.2. Issue 2 - Incorrect Calculation Post 16.06.2005: For the period post 16.06.2005, the differential service tax was reduced without sufficient justification. The first appellate authority also exempted an amount of &8377;5,71,269/-, arguing that the principal contractor fulfilled the service tax obligation. The Revenue argued against this exemption, citing the absence of any statutory provision. Discrepancies in the tax amounts paid were noted, leading to a request for a remand to rectify the calculations.3. Issue 3 - Appellant's Grounds for Appeal: The appellant contested the demand confirmed by the first appellate authority, highlighting inconsistencies in treating services provided to different clients. The Tribunal observed errors in confirming demands for services rendered to specific clients post 16.06.2005, where payments were received earlier. The appellant's arguments were considered, leading to a remand for further examination by the first appellate authority.4. Final Decision: The Tribunal allowed the appeals by remanding the matter to the first appellate authority for a fresh evaluation. Both parties' contentions regarding errors in calculations and the existence of maintenance contracts were acknowledged, emphasizing the need for a thorough review of all documents before reaching a conclusion. The decision was pronounced on 12.11.2018, leaving all issues open for reconsideration.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
