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 rules in favor of PSU on Service Tax & CENVAT Credit for works contracts</h1> <h3>M/s. Mackintosh Burn Limited Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Kolkata</h3> M/s. Mackintosh Burn Limited Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Kolkata - TMI Issues:1. Demand of Service Tax and CENVAT Credit on works contract services provided by a state-owned PSU.2. Applicability of Sec. 68 of the Finance Act, 1994 and Rule (2)(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.3. Exemption under Sec. 97 and Sec. 98 of the Finance Act, 1994 for repair and maintenance services.4. Interpretation of Works Contract taxation post judgments in relevant cases.5. Consideration of subsequent retrospective amendments and judgments not available during original adjudication.Analysis:1. The case involves a state-owned PSU facing demands of Service Tax and CENVAT Credit amounting to significant sums for works contract services provided between 2005-2009. The appellant contests the taxation citing Supreme Court and Tribunal judgments.2. The appellant argues that the works contracts executed by them cannot be taxed under a service contract simplicitor, referencing the Supreme Court judgment in CCE vs. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. The appellant also relies on other judgments and retrospective exemptions under Sec. 97 and Sec. 98 of the Finance Act, 1994.3. The Tribunal acknowledges the retrospective exemptions under the Finance Act, 2012 for repair and maintenance services, rendering the tax demand baseless. Additionally, the Tribunal notes the Supreme Court's stance that Works Contracts cannot be taxed under other service categories.4. Recognizing that the Ld. Commissioner did not have the benefit of subsequent judgments and amendments, the Tribunal decides to remand the matter for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal directs the adjudicating authority to consider Sec. 97, Sec. 98, and relevant judgments before passing new orders.5. The Tribunal ensures the appellant's right to a fair hearing during the fresh adjudication process, emphasizing the importance of considering all relevant legal provisions and judicial precedents. The order is pronounced on October 22, 2019, signaling a fair and just approach to resolve the tax dispute.
TaxTMI 