https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346464 The Court allowed the Central Excise Appeal challenging the rejection of the Application for refund of service tax under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Emphasizing the correct bifurcation of indivisible works contracts to determine the service element subject to service tax, the judgment clarified that service tax should not extend to the entire cost of establishment, expenses, and profit earned by the contractor. The Court's analysis highlighted the importance of identifying the service element within a works contract for the levy of service tax, following Supreme Court precedents on the taxation of works contracts. en-us Wed, 02 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Apr 2018 11:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346464 The Court allowed the Central Excise Appeal challenging the rejection of the Application for refund of service tax under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Emphasizing the correct bifurcation of indivisible works contracts to determine the service element subject to service tax, the judgment clarified that service tax should not extend to the entire cost of establishment, expenses, and profit earned by the contractor. The Court's analysis highlighted the importance of identifying the service element within a works contract for the levy of service tax, following Supreme Court precedents on the taxation of works contracts. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 02 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346464