https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789604 In a works contract, where repair and maintenance charges separately disclosed the value of parts, valuation had to be made under Rule 2A(i) because the goods component was determinable. For painting charges, where the value of paint was not separately ascertainable and the billing was composite, Rule 2A(ii)(B) applied. The rules do not prevent different valuation methods for distinct composite services merely because they appear in the same invoice. On that basis, the demand was unsustainable, and the impugned order was set aside. en-us Mon, 06 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Apr 2026 09:02:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789604 In a works contract, where repair and maintenance charges separately disclosed the value of parts, valuation had to be made under Rule 2A(i) because the goods component was determinable. For painting charges, where the value of paint was not separately ascertainable and the billing was composite, Rule 2A(ii)(B) applied. The rules do not prevent different valuation methods for distinct composite services merely because they appear in the same invoice. On that basis, the demand was unsustainable, and the impugned order was set aside. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 06 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789604