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 Remands Case for Reevaluation: Examining Recent Case Law and Contract's Divisibility for Fair Judgment.</h1> <h3>Anupam Industries Ltd Versus C.C.E. & C. -Anand</h3> Anupam Industries Ltd Versus C.C.E. & C. -Anand - TMI Issues involved: The liability of the Appellant to pay Service Tax when Excise duty/Sales Tax had been paid on the gross value of the purchase order for cranes, including Erection/commissioning charges and transport.Summary:Issue 1: Liability to pay Service TaxThe Appellant, engaged in manufacturing and selling cranes, supplied cranes to customers under purchase orders which included obligations for manufacturing, transport, delivery, erection, and installation at the buyer's premises. The Appellant claimed to have paid Excise duty and sales tax on the total sales value, including erection and commissioning charges. The Revenue demanded Service Tax on the entire sale value of cranes, arguing that erection and commissioning charges were included. The Appellant contended that no additional charges were recovered beyond the invoice value on which Excise duty/sales tax had already been paid.Issue 2: Legal GroundsThe Appellant raised various grounds during the appeal, citing case law to support that the goods were supplied. The issue of limitation was also raised due to conflicting case law and legal interpretations.Issue 3: Taxability of Erection Commissioning ServicesThe Revenue argued that Service Tax is chargeable on any taxable service, including the gross amount charged for services like Erection Commissioning of cranes. Reference was made to the L&T decision, highlighting that composite contracts could only be taxed under Works Contract Services from a certain period onwards.Issue 4: Judicial PrecedentThe Appellant relied on a decision in the matter of VISHWANATH PROJECTS LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, HYDRABAD, which emphasized the importance of clear demarcation between material supply and service components in contracts. It was concluded that the contract in question was a composite works contract and could have been taxed under Works Contract Services post a specific date.Conclusion:The Tribunal found that the matter required further examination in light of recent case law and the nature of the contract to determine if it was divisible or composite. The case was remitted back to the Appellate Authority for reevaluation considering the available case law and arguments presented by the Appellant. The appeal was allowed by way of remand.
TaxTMI 