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>High Court Dismisses Appeal on 'Service' Interpretation Under Finance Act; Advises Pursuing Supreme Court Appeal.</h1> <h3>M/s. INDUS MOTOR COMPANY PVT. LIMITED Versus THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS AND SERVICE TAX, (NOW CHANGED TO COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAXES AND CENTRAL EXCISE), KOCHI, THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS (APPEALS), (NOW CHANGED TO COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAXES AND CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS) ), KOCHI AND THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE</h3> The Kerala HC dismissed the appellant's appeal concerning the interpretation of 'service' under the Finance Act, 1994, advising the appellant to pursue ... Maintainability of appeal - Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Scope of Service - HELD THAT:- The issue decided in the case of CCE., C. & ST., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM VERSUS KERALA STATE BEVERAGES [2014 (5) TMI 170 - KERALA HIGH COURT] where it was held that Reverting to Section 35L, we notice that clause (b) thereof provides for an appeal to the Supreme Court from any order passed by the Appellate Tribunal relating, among other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of excise. Appeal dismissed. Issues:1. Interpretation of the definition of 'service' under the Finance Act, 1994.Interpretation of 'Service' Definition:The main issue in this case was whether the activities of the appellant-dealer fell within the definition of 'service' as per the Finance Act, 1994. The court referred to a previous case involving a similar matter where it was decided that such issues needed to be taken up with the Supreme Court under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The court cited previous decisions to support its reasoning, including cases like CEE, C&ST, Thiruvananthapuram v. Kerala State Beverages and CEE, ST&C, Cochin v. Al-Hussam India Hajj & Umrah Services Management. Ultimately, the court rejected the appeal, advising the appellant to approach the Supreme Court if desired, with no order as to costs.This judgment by the Kerala High Court dealt with the interpretation of the definition of 'service' under the Finance Act, 1994. The court emphasized the need to follow the legal process and precedent, directing the appellant to seek resolution through the Supreme Court if desired. The decision was based on previous rulings and the specific legal framework applicable in such cases.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
