https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314287 The appellant's appeal was allowed, and the confirmed demand for June 2007 was set aside. The tribunal found that the services provided by the appellant were indeed Works Contract, not Erection and Commissioning. The adjudication was influenced by a Supreme Court decision emphasizing the separation of goods' value in a works contract and the Chennai Coordinate Bench's decision, which supported the appellant's argument. Consequently, the demand under the incorrect service category was invalidated, and any consequential relief was granted to the appellant. en-us Thu, 13 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 May 2024 10:45:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314287 The appellant's appeal was allowed, and the confirmed demand for June 2007 was set aside. The tribunal found that the services provided by the appellant were indeed Works Contract, not Erection and Commissioning. The adjudication was influenced by a Supreme Court decision emphasizing the separation of goods' value in a works contract and the Chennai Coordinate Bench's decision, which supported the appellant's argument. Consequently, the demand under the incorrect service category was invalidated, and any consequential relief was granted to the appellant. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 13 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314287