2016 (10) TMI 457

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f residential flats of NTPC fo residence of their employees. The demand on this count is Rs. 17,82,062/-; b)  The appellants have been provided service of construction in Himachal Pradesh and Punjab. The contention of the appellant is that they are registered with the Service Tax Commissioner, Panchkula which has jurisdiction over them and having no jurisdiction over the construction at site. So for the construction work carried in Punjab and Himachal Pradesh, the concerned Commissioner had no jurisdiction to demand of Rs. 62,92,468/-. c)  On balance amount, the appellants have admitted their liability of duty of Rs. 5,63,462. Out of this, Rs. 4,28,459/- has already been paid by them during adjudication.  3. It is th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t as may be determined in the prescribed manner. 26. We have already seen that Rule 2(A) framed pursuant to this power has followed the second Gannon Dunkerley case in segregating the 'service' component of a works contract from the 'goods' component. It begins by working downwards from the gross amount charged for the entire works contract and minusing from it the value of the property in goods transferred in the execution of such works contract. This is done by adopting the value that is adopted for the purpose of payment of VAT. The rule goes on to say that the service component of the works contract is to include the eight elements laid down in the second Gannon Dunkerley case including apportionment of the cost of establi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s were not inconsistent with the provisions of the Central Act. It was found that, in fact, the State of Uttar Pradesh had framed such rules in exercise of powers under Section 13(3) of the Central Act as a result of which the necessary machinery for the assessment of central sales tax was found to be there. The Delhi High Court judgment unfortunately misread the aforesaid judgment of this Court to arrive at the conclusion that it was an authority for the proposition that a tax is leviable even if no rules are framed for assessment of such tax, which is wholly incorrect. The extracted passage from Mahim Patram's case only referred to rules not being framed under the Central Act and not to rules not being framed at all. The conclusion theref....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d firm. Interestingly enough, this provision is referred to only in the minority judgment in M/s. Murarilal's case (supra). The impugned judgment in the present case has referred to Ellis C. Reid's case but has not extracted the real ratio contained therein. It then goes on to say that this is a case of short levy which has been noticed during the lifetime of the deceased and then goes on to state that equally therefore legal representatives of a manufacturer who had paid excess duty would not by the self-same reasoning be able to claim such excess amount paid by the deceased. Neither of these reasons are reasons which refer to any provision of law. Apart from this, the High Court went into morality and said that the moral principl....