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>Appeal allowed for remand to verify work execution & service classification. Importance of factual verification for abatement eligibility.</h1> <h3>M/s H Kant & Co. Versus C.C.E. & S.T. Vadodara-I</h3> M/s H Kant & Co. Versus C.C.E. & S.T. Vadodara-I - TMI Issues:1. Eligibility of abatement under Notification 18/2005-ST for repair and maintenance services.2. Classification of service as works contract service.3. Verification of execution of work with material for tax purposes.Eligibility of Abatement under Notification 18/2005-ST:The appellant had registered under maintenance or repair services and claimed abatement under Notification 18/2005-ST. However, the department contended that the abatement for commercial or industrial construction service was not applicable to the appellant as they provided repair and maintenance services. The differential duty demand was confirmed based on this denial of exemption.Classification of Service as Works Contract Service:The appellant argued that they provided both new construction and repair and maintenance services, with the contract executed for service along with material. They paid sales tax on the material portion, considering it a works contract service. Citing the judgment in the case of CCE vs Larsen & Toubro, the appellant claimed that works contract service was not taxable during a specific period. Additional judgments were also presented to support this argument.Verification of Execution of Work with Material for Tax Purposes:The Revenue, however, maintained that since the appellant paid sales tax on the material, the sale of goods and service should be considered separately. They argued that the judgment in the Larsen & Toubro case did not apply in this scenario. The Tribunal noted that the adjudicating authority did not verify whether the contract was executed with material and if the criteria for classifying services as works contract were met. As such, the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for further examination to determine if the service should be classified under works contract service.In conclusion, the appeal was allowed for remand to verify the execution of work with material and determine if the service fell under works contract service. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of verifying these facts before making a decision on the eligibility of abatement and classification of services.
TaxTMI 