Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.80 seconds)
Documents citing ) M/S.National Building Construction ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & ... on 4 May, 2011

Yes vs Represented By : Adj. Request on 7 October, 2013

4. Heard both sides & perused the case records. The facts of the present case are similar to the facts in the case of National Building Construction Corpn. Limited vs. CCE & ST, Patna (supra) relied upon by the appellant, where the sub-Contractor was having a contract with NBCC who in turn was the main contractor and providing services to M/s. NTPC. M/s. NBCC (main contractor) had paid the Service Tax of the entire contract value between M/s. NBCC and M/s. NTPC. It was held in Para-9 of this judgment that sub-Contractor has not rendered direct Service to M/s. NTPC and if any tax was paid by the Sub-Contractor the same was available as credit to NBCC and that was held to be a case of revenue neutrally and that no tax is demandable from the Sub-Contractor.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

) M/S. Mackintosh Burn Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs, Central ... on 13 February, 2015

Further, she has referred to the judgment of National Building Construction Ltd. Vs. CCE of the Patna High Court dated 4th May, 2011. The contractor M/s. Avantika which has rendered site formation to M/s. NBCC pursuant to a contract of M/s. NTPC; NBCC was held liable to tax under the Finance Act and not M/s. Avantika contractor as the former was actually rendering services to M/s. NTPC although the agreement entered into between them on principal to principal basis. So advancing the alternative argument, the Ld. Advocate submitted that in the event the Border Fencing services is classified as taxable service under 165 (105) zzz of Finance Act then the executing agency i.e. M/s. EPIL be liable to Service Tax. The ld. Consultant Shri A.C. Tikadar for the appellant M/s. N.G. Bhattacharya and M/s. Ashutosh Bandyopadhyay (Appeal No.ST/391) reiterated the submissions advances by others and disputed the computation of the demands in these appeals.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 30 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Bharti Airtel Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Goods & Service ... on 27 January, 2025

In his written reply submitted after the hearing on 22.04.2024, learned counsel, for the appellants, submits that the reliance placed by the Learned Authorised Representative on the cases of Idea Cellular Ltd 2019(26) GSTL 224 (T-Mum); Bee Am Ind P Ltd 2017(4) GSTL 185 (T-Del); Bharti Hexcom Ltd. 2019 (24) GSTL 588 (T-Del) and National Building Construction Corporation Ltd. v Commissioner of Service Tax 2014 (33) STR 113 (Del.) is misplaced and the cases are distinguishable on the facts and law. He submits that interest under Section 75 of the Act and penalties under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Act are not imposable; in any case, benefit of waiver of penalty under Section 80 of the Act must be extended to the appellant; appellant is entitled to benefit of cum-tax benefit in case demand of service tax is confirmed.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shipping Corporation Of India vs Commissioner Ce & St(Ltu) Mumbai on 19 February, 2025

Reliance was also placed on the decision in National Building Corporation Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Patna [2011 (23) STR 593], in order1, in Apeejay Shipping Limited v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Kolkata disposing off appeal2 against order3 of Commissioner of Service Tax, 1 [final order no. 77387 of 2023 dated 19th October 2023] 2 [service tax appeal no. 88 of 2012] ST/87547/2016 6 Kolkata, in order4, in Commissioner of Service Tax v. Sidh Designers Pvt Ltd and others, disposing off appeal5 against order6 of Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Conwood Pre Fab Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Raigad on 18 June, 2014

4. The contention of the appellant is that the activity undertaken by the appellant covers under commercial construction service rendered to a port and therefore is not taxable as per the provisions of Section 65(25b) of the Finance Act. The appellant relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of National Building Construction Corpn. Ltd. vs. CCE&ST, Patna reported in 2011 (23) STR 593, to submit that in similar situation, the confirmed demand is set aside by the Tribunal.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1