https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362844 The judgment in this case involved disputes over the availment of credit for service tax on repair and maintenance services under the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. The appellant argued that repair and maintenance services should be distinguished from construction services excluded under the rules. The Revenue contended that evidence was lacking to prove the nature of the works contract. The court directed a re-examination by the adjudicating authority to determine whether the works contract was for repair and maintenance or new construction, based on relevant legal provisions and prior tribunal decisions. The impugned orders were set aside, and all appeals were disposed of accordingly. en-us Mon, 16 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Jul 2018 09:42:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362844 The judgment in this case involved disputes over the availment of credit for service tax on repair and maintenance services under the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. The appellant argued that repair and maintenance services should be distinguished from construction services excluded under the rules. The Revenue contended that evidence was lacking to prove the nature of the works contract. The court directed a re-examination by the adjudicating authority to determine whether the works contract was for repair and maintenance or new construction, based on relevant legal provisions and prior tribunal decisions. The impugned orders were set aside, and all appeals were disposed of accordingly. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 16 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362844